5G roadblock: labor

Sun Jan 5 21:05:09 UTC 2020

This may be the case for single family homes, but bringing ftth into MDUs
can be very ezpensive, as building want to charge entry fees, etc.

Same goes for commercial buildings.

5G fixed wireless allows wireless to be used for the last mile, with the
user still taking advantage of WiFi indoors. And it's the same
infrastructure that supports the mobile use cases.

On Sun, Jan 5, 2020, 3:57 PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> On 1/5/20 3:21 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> >
> > I think we can all agree that the future is wireless access for
> > everything (phones, tablets, laptops, domestic appliances, e.t.c.).
> >
> > The question isn't about whether the kids will be using wire or
> > wireless... we know they will be using wireless. The question is what
> > that wireless will be. Something has to drive the wireless, so the wire
> > (mostly high-bandwidth fibre) is not going anywhere. It is the
> > distribution, particularly in consumer applications, that will be
> wireless.
> >
> > I just think that it will be more wi-fi than GSM data, simply because of
> > the cost of scaling out GSM data vs. the cost of running fibre to a site
> > and distributing connectivity via wi-fi.
> >
> > Because you can pack wi-fi AP's a lot more densely for cheaper compared
> > to GSM radios, I think allocating newer frequencies toward wi-fi in
> > addition to the existing 2.4GHz and 5GHz makes a lot more sense to me,
> > and partially resolves the never-ending issues MNO's have of a lack of
> > spectrum.
>
>
> It occurs to me that what we're really quibbling about here is where
> fiber ends. Is it at every street corner, or is it directly into my
> house? It seems to me ftth is the long term win economically because not
> everybody cares about each upgrade to wifi and are happy to wait until
> they do care -- if ever. Carriers, on the other hand, have to forklift
> in the new equipment at every G+1. That costs a lot of money which they
> have to recoup through higher fees. And they have to buy spectrum which
> is expensive. And they have to buy/rent real estate which is expensive.
> But people say ftth is expensive. But expensive to all of the stuff that
> wireless carriers need to deploy? Color me extremely dubious. It's not
> like rent seeking is exactly a secret with carriers, and that's what
> this smells like to me. The only advantage they have is that they can do
> handoffs which while useful, is not a deal breaker in a *lot* of
> situations. Other than that, I really don't want to use their air bits.
>
> Mike
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200105/6fa855bb/attachment.html>