<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/Jan/20 16:25, Ca By wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD6AjGTU9eiz6UWntnCA0mhpCML9Lfm8Lzei7vhKqiWfCjOXUA@mail.gmail.com">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto">Mark, you are oversimplifying the market</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Isn't that how the kids see it, though :-).<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD6AjGTU9eiz6UWntnCA0mhpCML9Lfm8Lzei7vhKqiWfCjOXUA@mail.gmail.com">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">1. All wireless networks are capped by
spectrum capacity / physica. As a user, you have been on a
congested cell site and a congested 802.11 AP. So, as an
operator, you have to ration service. That means cap / qos /
$</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agreed - but the cost of deploying a GSM radio is orders of
magnitude higher than the cost of deploying wi-fi (even
enterprise-grade wi-fi).<br>
<br>
Already, customers are doing more than half the work for operators
by deploying their own wi-fi into their own homes at their own cost.
Folk like Google (with OnHub and Google WiFi) are making the
deployment, management and performance of in-home wi-fi a lot easier
for users that "feel like the Internet should be simple". This is a
good thing for MNO's, especially those already leveraging VoWiFi to
control investment in GSM radios without impacting performance. I'm
sure MNO's will be less-than-pleased if in-home wi-fi were to
suddenly collapse, because all that traffic then shifts back to GSM,
e.g., during power outages, ISP outages, e.t.c.<br>
<br>
Yes, you probably need as many wi-fi AP's as you need 5G radios, but
the cost between them is vastly different that you can provide
customers with the benefit at a fraction of the cost. Hell, if the
MNO's came together to share wi-fi infrastructure and differentiate
services by SSID, in the same location, it might actually work :-).<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD6AjGTU9eiz6UWntnCA0mhpCML9Lfm8Lzei7vhKqiWfCjOXUA@mail.gmail.com">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">2. In the USA, Cable / fiber / copper ISPs
sometimes do not sell unlimited either</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div><a
href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.howtogeek.com/424037/googles-stadia-is-about-to-crash-against-isp-data-caps/amp/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.howtogeek.com/424037/googles-stadia-is-about-to-crash-against-isp-data-caps/amp/</a></div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Network operators like to set their rates
based on some median user profile. They are not being
exploitive. Some users tax the network more and drive the
upgrade cycle more than others. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Same here in Africa, when FTTH services were initially rolled out. <br>
<br>
In South Africa, as little as 4 years ago, 90% of all FTTH services
were cap-based. Today, while you can still get a cap-based FTTH
service, I'd say that number has shifted, and 65% - 70% of all FTTH
services are now uncapped. Some are maintaining their capped
services but bundling in uncapped elements for popular services such
as Netflix, e.t.c.<br>
<br>
Ultimately, the eco system is showing that the cost of IP Transit is
so low (just about US$0 for peering in South Africa on NAPAfrica),
to the extent that I can posit all FTTH services in South Africa
will be 100% uncapped within the next 2 - 4 years.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD6AjGTU9eiz6UWntnCA0mhpCML9Lfm8Lzei7vhKqiWfCjOXUA@mail.gmail.com">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">3. There are wifi providers, wisps, cable, mno
... they all compete and blur the lines. I think wifi has
provided limited benefit to cable operators that have
deployed it, but hope for using free spectrum springs
enternal</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div><a
href="https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/altice-mobile-garners-its-first-15-000-subs-and-3m-revenue"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/altice-mobile-garners-its-first-15-000-subs-and-3m-revenue</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
So I'm not suggesting that wi-fi be deployed as the sole solution.
I'm mainly referring to dense parts of a city, country, e.t.c.<br>
<br>
In sparsely-populated locations, 2G, 3G, 4G should do just fine (I
don't think 5G or anything with a higher frequency makes sense due
to the vast spread of eyeballs in these areas).<br>
<br>
But in densely-packed areas, up until the point where 5G becomes
commercially viable to deploy at scale, utilize the fibre that is
massively available to create as many pockets as possible of wi-fi
in places where customers do not run their own, e.g., malls, stadia,
restaurants, bars, clubs, gas stations, schools, e.t.c., to
alleviate the pressure on 4G (or even pressure on dense 5G
deployment). One could even go a step further and work with private
wi-fi owners (regular people running a shop) to allow MNO's to
either ride their wi-fi network or replace it with a shared one.<br>
<br>
Of course, if 5G does become reasonably cheap to deploy in the
future, then who cares :-). But judging by the rate of development
in the wi-fi space, it seems like it's going to be a race between
both camps with each new iteration. And as long as GSM capex
continues to remain as costly as it has always been - considering
the declining margins for MNO's - wi-fi capex will always look like
an alternative.<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>