[AusNOG] AAB Statement

Thu Sep 2 15:25:32 EST 2010

"Wireless services, as they stand, are simply too vulnerable to interference and interception and they simply cannot be relied upon."

Wireless/Microwave is used extensively (and has been used) for YEARS. Telstra, PowerLink, Optus, VHA, Allegro, Polyfone, BigAir, NuSkope, WorldWithoutWires, LinkNet, Tekhaus, HaleNet, Internode, NextGen, Silk Telecom, Amcom, Vertel and COUNTLESS other ISPs/telcos have been using it and continue to do so for backhaul and end-user access. Hell, the entire AT&T Long Lines network used TDM over microwave as the preferred carriage technology for the US continental PSTN for decades. 

Sure, before that there was a little troposcatter, but we won't talk about that because kylstrons belong in HVDC amirite? ;)

Power companies have been using fixed wireless for telemetry/remote metering and BILLIONS of people around the world have been using GSM/CDMA for telephony/data services for over a decade.

Wireless is a proven technology and it is viable for delivering broadband services to remote users. In fact, it is the preferred method of delivering capacity for remote users. Keep in mind that remote users are far more sparsely populated than regional (CBD) deployments and will not encounter the same spectrum saturation issues present in metro deployments. 

My (non-expert) opinion would be that, for the predominance of users in these areas, a well engineered, unlicensed P2MP setup with appropriate consideration to eliminate cross-cell interference would probably be sufficient to deliver 12Mbps to the "last 10%" of users currently not adequately serviced by fixed-line infrastructure. It is very possible to get 100Mbps of P2MP in 20Mhz of spectrum with TDMA WiFi gear. The output power limitations in the ISM band would (hopefully) prevent over saturation and interference and co-ordination between WISPs goes a long way to making this a very viable technology.

Anyone that concerned about security will be handling this at L2-3 independently of whatever the carriage provider is doing.

-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net on behalf of Andrew Oskam
Sent: Thu 9/2/2010 2:16 PM
To: Dmitri Kalintsev
Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net List
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] AAB Statement

I know that this may be slightly off-topic from the latency talks and what not (which i will steer clear of due to my lack of knowledge in 3G and LTE).

However, Whilst I fully support AAB and their crusade to supply broadband to the less fortunate - I still stand by the fact that we should be providing a reliable fixed service over a wireless service.

Wireless services, as they stand, are simply too vulnerable to interference and interception and they simply cannot be relied upon.

I do however enjoy the idea of mixed delivery models - sounds very nice..keen to see where this goes.

Andrew Oskam
E  percy at th3interw3bs.net

NOTICE:
These comments are my own personal opinions only and do not necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of my employer or their affiliates. All comments are based upon my current knowledge and my own personal experiences. You should conduct independent tests to verify the validity of any statements made in this email before basing any decisions upon those statements.

On 01/09/2010, at 1:43 PM, Dmitri Kalintsev wrote:

Mark,

Latency has very little effect on streaming video (I assume that this is what you mean when referring to the iView). The only couple of latency-sensitive applications of major interest to a typical consumer that I could think of off the top of my head would be interactive voice and/or video (which needs to have network portion latency to be within ~150-160ms one way to perform absolutely top-notch but can easily tolerate up to 200 ms one way without user noticing too much) and online gaming (where people shoot at each other), where the rule is "the lower the better" without actual lower limit.

-- Dmitri

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Mark Smith <nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:16:58 +1000
James Spenceley <james at vocus.com.au> wrote:

> Noggers,
>
> As Bev foreshadowed yesterday the 'NBN 3.0: The Alliance for Affordable Broadband" document has now been released.
>
> If you are interested in adding your name to it please contact one of us.
>
> Document is available here ...
>
> http://www.vocus.com.au/media/AAB_Final2.pdf
>

I'd like to see latency goals mentioned. For a lot of applications, the
bandwidth isn't starting to matter as much as the latency (DNS lookup
RTTs of e.g. 200ms can make the web look slow).

It might also be worth coming with the a definitive definition of what
"broadband" is, because you can't really judge what suitable
technologies are until you have those parameters. For example, 4G might
be able to go up to speeds of 100Mbps, but if it has a link latency of
100ms-200ms (I don't know, I'm making some estimations based on 3G
experiences), the amount of bandwidth won't matter to people using
interactive or latency sensitive applications.

One thought I've had is that people should be able to watch ABC iView
as a minimum, as that is our government provided web content source,
which means a minimum of 1.5 Mbps for bandwidth, and I'd say something
like no more than 50-75ms link latency.

> --
> James
>
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100902/a0467abb/attachment.html>