Decius wrote:
] There is much dismay and even despair over the slow pace at
] which broadband is advancing in the United States. This slow
] pace is often claimed to be fatally retarding the recovery of
] the entire IT industry. As a result there are increasing calls
] for government action, through regulation or even through
] outright subsidies.
]
] A careful examination shows that broadband is full of puzzles
] and paradoxes, which suggests caution before taking any
] drastic action. As one simple example, the basic meaning of
] broadband is almost universally misunderstood, since by the
] official definition, we all have broadband courtesy of the
] postal system. Also, broadband penetration, while generally
] regarded as disappointingly slow, is actually extremely fast
] by most standards, faster than cell phone diffusion at a
] comparable stage. Furthermore, many of the policies proposed
] for advancing broadband are likely to have perverse effects.
] There are many opportunities for narrowband services that are
] not being exploited, some of which might speed up broadband
] adoption.
]
] There are interesting dynamics to the financial and
] technological scenes that suggest broadband access may arrive
] sooner than generally expected. It may also arrive through
] unexpected channels. On the other hand, fiber-to-the-home,
] widely regarded as the Holy Grail of residential broadband,
] might never become widespread. In any case, there is likely to
] be considerable turmoil in the telecom industry over
] the next few years. Robust growth in demand is likely
] to be combined with a restructuring of the
] industry.
]
] This paper also appears in the September 2003 issue of First
] Monday. You'll want to print it to read it, so I've linked
] directly to the PDF version.

I haven't had a chance to read all 26 pages of this text, but I can tell you that Odlyzko does uncover a lot of rocks. However, some of his assumptions are arguable. For example, the assumption that the expansion of fixed wireless could preclude FTTH deployment is probably erroneous.

For one, wireless will never have the capability or capacity of wireline communications. Particularly when we're talking about optical technologies, wireless is simply not able to scale in a fasion necessary to accomodate the often order of magnitude increases in bandwidth and transmission quality. With DWDM, I can practically carry unlimited OC-192 transmissions over one strand. Wireless has no equivalent.

Secondly, the economics of wireless deployment work against it just as much as a FTTH rollout. Even if you had 10mi radii fixed wireless POPs, you'd still have the issue that you need backhaul from each POP (almost requiring wireline transmission) and your infrastructure costs rise to meet the same dollars as a FTTH rollout. Today and in the foreseeable future, there does not appear to be a wireless technology that will enable 10's of thousands of subscribers (the norm in a 10mi radius deployment), each with 10Mbit+ speeds (nay, 20Mbit if you want to stream HDTV) from one central fixed wireless POP. That's just not going to happen. Satellite might be the one exception, but it's not a feasible 2 way medium.

And this is just the technology and economics of one deterrent to broadband deployment. We haven't begun to talk about the political and societal ramifications. Which I'll talk about when I have a chance to finish Odlyzko's paper.

flynn23 wrote:
] the assumption that the expansion of fixed wireless could
] preclude FTTH deployment is probably erroneous.

Well, you've certainly hit the core of the apple here, but I don't think that this is an assumption. He does a fairly good job of explaining the costs associated with fiber deployment vs. fixed wireless, and he also makes reference to a clear 10 to 1 consumer preference for mobility over bandwidth in the telecomunications.

] For one, wireless will never have the capability or capacity
] of wireline communications.

True, but the thing is that people don't really USE the bandwidth they've got. The problem with broadband, as you know, and as he demonstrates, isn't that its not available, but that people aren't really using it. I happen to think that'll change, but I'm not seeing anything on the near term horizon that couldn't be offered over fixed wireless. Wireless is perfectly fine for music. Video, frankly, just isn't here yet, and if I could buy it I'd be happy to have it downloading in the background overnight. I don't need it live.

What is the application for all this bandwidth?

] Secondly, the economics of wireless deployment work against it
] just as much as a FTTH rollout. Even if you had 10mi radii
] fixed wireless POPs, you'd still have the issue that you need
] backhaul from each POP (almost requiring wireline
] transmission) and your infrastructure costs rise to meet the
] same dollars as a FTTH rollout.

Not if you are using an adhoc mesh routing system. Furthermore, putting 10 drops in ten houses costs 10 times more the putting one drop in for 10 houses. He demonstrates this clearly.

] Today and in the foreseeable
] future, there does not appear to be a wireless technology that
] will enable 10's of thousands of subscribers (the norm in a
] 10mi radius deployment),

Don't think 10 miles. Smaller cells, more bandwidth, less power, less spectrum. wifi...

My AP is not my bottleneck. If it was outside my house that would be just fine, at least from a service perspective. Security, on the otherhand, gets a hell of a lot harder...

Having said all of this, I was involved with a small wireless startup effort in San Francisco, and I learned, basically, that there is very little capital available for this kind of thing. That, more then anything else, may keep it from becoming a reality.

Decius wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] the assumption that the expansion of fixed wireless could
] ] preclude FTTH deployment is probably erroneous.
]
] Well, you've certainly hit the core of the apple here, but I
] don't think that this is an assumption. He does a fairly good
] job of explaining the costs associated with fiber deployment
] vs. fixed wireless, and he also makes reference to a clear 10
] to 1 consumer preference for mobility over bandwidth in the
] telecomunications.

there is a 10:1 preference for mobility over bandwidth _today_, after cellular has been around for 20 years and broadband has been around for less than 6. As he points out, broadband adoption and deployment has far surpassed cellular/mobility adoption in terms of time and growth rate. It's slowing now, but I think there are reasons for that which are complex in nature. But there is one helluva big reason and that's monopoly.

] ] For one, wireless will never have the capability or capacity
]
] ] of wireline communications.
]
] True, but the thing is that people don't really USE the
] bandwidth they've got. The problem with broadband, as you
] know, and as he demonstrates, isn't that its not available,
] but that people aren't really using it. I happen to think
] that'll change, but I'm not seeing anything on the near term
] horizon that couldn't be offered over fixed wireless. Wireless
] is perfectly fine for music. Video, frankly, just isn't here
] yet, and if I could buy it I'd be happy to have it downloading
] in the background overnight. I don't need it live.

you sir, have hit the core of the apple. People don't use the bandwidth they have OR people CAN'T use the bandwidth they have? Consider:

o broadband line capping
o high cost with costs rising ($50/mo for avg 384k line)
o bandwidth intensive applications destroyed (ie Napster)
o bandwidth intensive sectors under assault (ie RIAA, MPAA, etc)
o lack of devices with integrated broadband support (add ons for PS2, xBox just recently arrived. Tivo still doesn't have an official broadband connection, etc)
o legislation preventing use of NAT, firewalls, multiple machines on home networks (TN HB457, S-DMCA laws, etc)
o brain dead FCC regulations changes stifling competition while dis-incentivizing RBOC investment in broadband

it goes on and on. IMO, scalar wireless is just an aperition due to the fact that all of these things are conspiring to slow the utilization of existing infrastructure. Innovation needs to follow the shortest path. With all of these roadblocks, there's some bleeding into anything that will allow me to utilize today's capabilities and innovate tomorrow's. It's GOING to happen, one way or another. It cannot be stopped. How it happens though, is anyone's guess. If the current environment continues, I can see wireless being highl... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]

flynn23 wrote:
] o broadband line capping

Do you understand the rational with this? I don't get it...

] o high cost with costs rising ($50/mo for avg 384k line)

Well, yes, rising in general, but there is another way to put this. Asymetric access is cheap. Symetric access is not. Most broadband cannot be used for servers. Symetric access is priced to suck money out of businesses. I can think of a wide range of potential applications for home servers, but I think there are niches where those applications can exist today, and until they become popular enough to create competitive pressures this is not going to change.

] o bandwidth intensive applications destroyed (ie Napster)
] o bandwidth intensive sectors under assault (ie RIAA, MPAA,
] etc)

Look for PVR based VoD in 2004, probably not over the Internet though. Their strategy with this will be to create proprietary devices that are computers but aren't open, upon which they can provide access to content in a controlled way. (This is, in general, an extremely dangerous development worth serious consideration. On the one side we have computers, which are a totally open platform upon which to build these services, and on the other side we have these closed systems, like X-boxes and PVRs, which are essentially the same things, and competing for the same space, but are totally closed and not adaptable. Currently the Tivos and x-boxes of the world are blowing the pants off the snapstreams and pc gamers...)

The reason I'm putting so much effort into getting a stable mythtv running is that it is a frontier that needs to be settled. There are lots of opportunities for interesting, legitimate applications here that won't be developed in the cable world because its so closed. At the same time, about 50% of what presently makes mythtv interesting is currently illegal. The copyright problem continues to be something that holds us back.

] o legislation preventing use of NAT, firewalls, multiple
] machines on home networks (TN HB457, S-DMCA laws, etc)

I don't think its fair to call this a block, but it could be a block if it is passed and enforced. A pre-emptive strike to (essentially) outlaw computers as a platform for certain kinds of broadband services...

] ] What is the application for all this bandwidth?
]
] it's already here. Imagine having a device in your home which
] allows you to check email, video and audio conference with
] anyone anywhere, visit any website, play any song ever
] recorded, watch any television or movie ever made, play any
] video game ever made, store your pictures and home movies, and
] turn your lights on and off for you automatically.

Yeah, sounds like mythtv to me... The thing is that this isn't all that interesting to me. VoD, MoD, and GoD are interesting because I don't have to go out to the store, but thats really it. Netflix is almost as good. Is it rea... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Decius wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] o broadband line capping
]
] Do you understand the rational with this? I don't get it...

yeah, the rational is transit costs for upstream providers. But the fact remains that most of the HSI providers use peering, which has essentially no cost of transmission. Just the cost of having a peering point, which you'd have either way.

But that's not the real driver. Look at who is left in the HSI space. It's RBOCs and cable cos. Both of these monopoly players have strong agendas for limiting bandwidth speeds because their own product sets are not built yet. We don't want no hackers figurin out how to make that dang Internet work better unless we can charge em for it!

] ] o high cost with costs rising ($50/mo for avg 384k line)
]
] Well, yes, rising in general, but there is another way to put
] this. Asymetric access is cheap. Symetric access is not.

I disagree. Asymetric access is not cheap if you are peering. In order to peer, you must push as much as you pull. Even if you are not peering and you are paying for transit with your neighboring systems, you still want as much equilibrium as possible. The only way you wouldn't want equilibrium is if you were pushing a LOT of data (a la Exodus or Akamai) because then everyone wants to connect with you and you can dictate pricing or policy. It's supply and demand.

] broadband cannot be used for servers. Symetric access is
] priced to suck money out of businesses. I can think of a wide
] range of potential applications for home servers, but I think
] there are niches where those applications can exist today, and
] until they become popular enough to create competitive
] pressures this is not going to change.

I agree with this part. But I think the reasoning behind it is that the HSI SP's can't figure out a way to derive revenue from it yet without causing an uproar. They're missing the point. You don't derive revenue from it. You let it happen organically and you nurture it. The result will be that people will want more bandwidth, which is where you make money.

] ] o bandwidth intensive applications destroyed (ie Napster)
] ] o bandwidth intensive sectors under assault (ie RIAA, MPAA,
] ] etc)
]
] Look for PVR based VoD in 2004, probably not over the Internet
] though. Their strategy with this will be to create proprietary
] devices that are computers but aren't open, upon which they
] can provide access to content in a controlled way. (This is,
] in general, an extremely dangerous development worth serious
] consideration. On the one side we have computers, which are a
] totally open platform upon which to build these services, and
] on the other side we have these closed systems, like X-boxes
] and PVRs, which are essentially the same things, and competing
] for the same space, but are totally c... [ Read More (0.8k in body) ]