PCCW launches 3.4GHz fixed wireless broadband in Thames Valley

http://www.ukbroadband.net/news.html

18 pounds for 512k, 28 pounds for 1Meg unlimited

Sustainable? I wonder...

"Steve" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> http://www.ukbroadband.net/news.html
> 18 pounds for 512k, 28 pounds for 1Meg unlimited

Question 1 for any wireless service is how is it backhauled? The
company that approached us were proposing to backhaul using a 2M
leased line contended 200:1. Obviously local contention would be
severe.

Maybe only BT can provide a good wireless service, since they could
backhaul through the exchange gateway, which I think is 400M+.

--

Mark W. Lewis, Broadband for Long Ashton & Failand

www.failand.org.uk

Mark Lewis <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Steve" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> http://www.ukbroadband.net/news.html
>> 18 pounds for 512k, 28 pounds for 1Meg unlimited
>
> Question 1 for any wireless service is how is it backhauled? The
> company that approached us were proposing to backhaul using a 2M
> leased line contended 200:1. Obviously local contention would be
> severe.

2M = 660G/month, or 3.3G/user.

If it was capped at 1G, with users paying extra for more bandwidth,
it might be reasonable.
Perhaps add a "off peak" scheme too, to allow better utilisation of the
link.
These sort of schemes rarely suit the heavy P2P user.

"Ian Stirling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 2M = 660G/month, or 3.3G/user.

The issue is not the average load, it is the narrowness of the local
gateway, which means you are going to be very aware of other users
sharing the line, doesn't it?

--

Mark W. Lewis, Broadband for Long Ashton & Failand

www.failand.org.uk

Steve wrote:
> http://www.ukbroadband.net/news.html
>
> 18 pounds for 512k, 28 pounds for 1Meg unlimited
>
> Sustainable? I wonder...

I signed up out of interest, just for the free first month. Apparently I'll
receive a modem tomorrow. I spoke to them on the phone, and without
sounding racist, couldn't understand much of what the bloke said - and nor
could he understand me! I see it's a Hong Kong company - and considering
their customer services are open from 8am to Midnight, perhaps calls are
being routed over there(?)

Either way it'll be interesting to see how it performs...and what this modem
looks like.

Will

Mark Lewis <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Ian Stirling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> 2M = 660G/month, or 3.3G/user.
>
> The issue is not the average load, it is the narrowness of the local
> gateway, which means you are going to be very aware of other users
> sharing the line, doesn't it?

I'm not sure.
It's not going to act like a 512K line at other than off-peak
periods.
If a third of the people use their computers at peak time, it's probably
going to drop to around modem speeds at worst case.

I'd guess it'd feel like 100-150K, with the appropriate caching
on the server.

On Thu, 6 May 2004 21:58:56 +0100, "W Luke" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>> http://www.ukbroadband.net/news.html
>>
>> 18 pounds for 512k, 28 pounds for 1Meg unlimited
>>
>> Sustainable? I wonder...
>
>I signed up out of interest, just for the free first month. Apparently I'll
>receive a modem tomorrow. I spoke to them on the phone, and without
>sounding racist, couldn't understand much of what the bloke said - and nor
>could he understand me! I see it's a Hong Kong company - and considering
>their customer services are open from 8am to Midnight, perhaps calls are
>being routed over there(?)

I read somewhere that implied that's what they are doing. I'll post
the link if I can find it again.

>
>Either way it'll be interesting to see how it performs...and what this modem
>looks like.

Keep us posted.

Steve wrote:

>> Either way it'll be interesting to see how it performs...and what
>> this modem looks like.
>
> Keep us posted.

Will do. I had hoped I could use my existing wireless card for my laptop -
the bloke said no, due to lack of drivers so perhaps in the future there'll
be a workaround.

Will

"W Luke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Will do. I had hoped I could use my existing wireless card for my
> laptop - the bloke said no, due to lack of drivers so perhaps in the
> future there'll be a workaround.

The PCCW service operates at 3.4Ghz which is a licensed band. Most
wireless cards (as in WiFi cards) operate in the unlicensed 2.4Ghz band,
so your wireless card wouldn't work with the service. You'd have to plug
the modem into a router/wireless access point to use your card.

--
My photos: http://www.weezer.plus.com/
To send me an e-mail, remove TEETH

Phil Chung <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

: The PCCW service operates at 3.4Ghz which is a licensed band. Most
: wireless cards (as in WiFi cards) operate in the unlicensed 2.4Ghz band,
: so your wireless card wouldn't work with the service. You'd have to plug
: the modem into a router/wireless access point to use your card.

They don't cover my area yet but I was interested to see that they claim
to cover quite large towns (eg. "Reading") on their Website. Do they mean
that they can reliably cover the whole of their areas (with how many
transmitters??) or does the postcode tie it down much more strictly? The
end users transmitter (at least!!!) can be THAT powerful!!!