Whither the fixed cellular WAN connection?

Back in the late nineties ["If you can remember WAP, you weren't there"]
when the 3G hype machine was starting to whip itself into a self-deluded
frenzy, I imagined that by now we'd all be driving flying space-cars,
wearing jet packs and using fixed cellular 3G connections to the WAN. Now I
don't know that any of the guilty parties [the telcos, not the jetpack
merchants] ever actually claimed that might be the case, but why are we all
still using wired connections?

Surely it's cheaper to maintain a bunch of base stations, than keeping
millions of kilometers of wire and fibre lit up? And adding new capacity -
all you need to do is hire some space on a transmission tower, or pay a
secondary school a pittance and throw up a new cell site. No digging up
roads or maintaining exchange buildings.

So with this great cost advantage, the 3G networks should be able to offer
us broadband, high speed symmetric circuits, IPClear-type private WANs,
short haul data, and all the rest of it, at a price that hammers their
fixed-line bretheren. But they're not. Where did it all go wrong?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
00:05:11 up 13 days, 2:05, 1 user, load average: 0.31, 0.21, 0.24
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

(E-Mail Removed) declared for all the world to hear...
> I imagined that by now we'd all be driving flying space-cars,
> wearing jet packs and using fixed cellular 3G connections to the WAN.

Do you mean to say you aren't doing all of the above? The rest of us
are, did you forget to buy yours or something?
--
Regards
Jon

(E-Mail Removed) declared for all the world to hear...
> but why are we all still using wired connections?

Because it's cheaper and faster and more reliable.

> Surely it's cheaper to maintain a bunch of base stations, than keeping
> millions of kilometers of wire and fibre lit up?

I thought it would be the other way around. Once a cable is buried thats
it, save for earth tremors.

> And adding new capacity -
> all you need to do is hire some space on a transmission tower, or pay a
> secondary school a pittance and throw up a new cell site.

Hah! Would that it were that easy!

> So with this great cost advantage, the 3G networks should be able to offer
> us broadband, high speed symmetric circuits, IPClear-type private WANs,
> short haul data, and all the rest of it, at a price that hammers their
> fixed-line bretheren. But they're not. Where did it all go wrong?

Your economics are a bit off. Fixed line connection users (I.e the whole
country) move hundreds of Tb of data every day, far more capacity than
any mobile network could cope with.
--
Regards
Jon

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, alexd <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Back in the late nineties ["If you can remember WAP, you weren't there"]
>when the 3G hype machine was starting to whip itself into a self-deluded
>frenzy, I imagined that by now we'd all be driving flying space-cars,
>wearing jet packs and using fixed cellular 3G connections to the WAN. Now I
>don't know that any of the guilty parties [the telcos, not the jetpack
>merchants] ever actually claimed that might be the case, but why are we all
>still using wired connections?

Becas'e it's cheaper...

> Surely it's cheaper to maintain a bunch of base stations, than keeping
>millions of kilometers of wire and fibre lit up?

How do you get data to the base-stations? Wirelessly? Great - until you need
to build more base stations/towers to get line of sight...

>And adding new capacity -
>all you need to do is hire some space on a transmission tower,

Have you ever tried to do this? (I have). Do you know how much this costs?

>or pay a
>secondary school a pittance and throw up a new cell site. No digging up
>roads or maintaining exchange buildings.

With the current FUD surrounding schools and WiFi/GSM/GPRS, that's one
place I'd steer well clear off ...

>So with this great cost advantage, the 3G networks should be able to offer
>us broadband, high speed symmetric circuits, IPClear-type private WANs,
>short haul data, and all the rest of it, at a price that hammers their
>fixed-line bretheren. But they're not. Where did it all go wrong?

The govt. got too greedy and fleeced the telcos for the 3G licenses. The
Telcos are too greedy and want to fleece the punters extortionate rates
to use it.

Gordon

Gordon Henderson wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, alexd <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:

>> Surely it's cheaper to maintain a bunch of base stations, than keeping
>>millions of kilometers of wire and fibre lit up?
>
> How do you get data to the base-stations? Wirelessly? Great - until you
> need to build more base stations/towers to get line of sight...

I would have thought you could have quite a large metropolitan area covered
wirelessly, given the sheer number of base stations and transmission towers
in a typical metropolitan area.

>>And adding new capacity -
>>all you need to do is hire some space on a transmission tower,
>
> Have you ever tried to do this? (I have). Do you know how much this costs?

My having no idea was the basis for the question. But yes, I am intrigued to
know. How is it charged? By the vertical metre? Kilogram? Minute?

>>or pay a
>>secondary school a pittance and throw up a new cell site. No digging up
>>roads or maintaining exchange buildings.
>
> With the current FUD surrounding schools and WiFi/GSM/GPRS, that's one
> place I'd steer well clear off ...

I'll take brain cancer in 50 years for a cheap internet connection now ;-)

>>So with this great cost advantage, the 3G networks should be able to offer
>>us broadband, high speed symmetric circuits, IPClear-type private WANs,
>>short haul data, and all the rest of it, at a price that hammers their
>>fixed-line bretheren. But they're not. Where did it all go wrong?
>
> The govt. got too greedy and fleeced the telcos for the 3G licenses. The
> Telcos are too greedy and want to fleece the punters extortionate rates
> to use it.

Do you think it's ever likely to happen? Maybe it would be better if none of
the WiMax license go to telcos, lest the same thing happen as with happened
with 3G...

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
10:53:47 up 13 days, 12:53, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.03, 0.00
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

"alexd" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Back in the late nineties ["If you can remember WAP, you weren't there"]
> when the 3G hype machine was starting to whip itself into a self-deluded
> frenzy, I imagined that by now we'd all be driving flying space-cars,
> wearing jet packs and using fixed cellular 3G connections to the WAN. Now
> I
> don't know that any of the guilty parties [the telcos, not the jetpack
> merchants] ever actually claimed that might be the case, but why are we
> all
> still using wired connections?

Because they are already there and hence cost zilch.


> Surely it's cheaper to maintain a bunch of base stations, than keeping
> millions of kilometers of wire and fibre lit up? And adding new capacity -
> all you need to do is hire some space on a transmission tower, or pay a
> secondary school a pittance and throw up a new cell site. No digging up
> roads or maintaining exchange buildings.
>
> So with this great cost advantage, the 3G networks should be able to offer
> us broadband, high speed symmetric circuits, IPClear-type private WANs,
> short haul data, and all the rest of it, at a price that hammers their
> fixed-line bretheren. But they're not. Where did it all go wrong?

By people investing in 3g when there were better technologies to do the job.
It will be UWB wireless that actually delivers what you are asking for not
3g.

Oh and it will still be cheaper to use the existing wires for most things.

(E-Mail Removed) declared for all the world to hear...
> The govt. got too greedy and fleeced the telcos for the 3G licenses.

They did no such thing. It was an auction, the networks fleeced
themselves.
--
Regards
Jon

On 2007-05-11, alexd <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Back in the late nineties ["If you can remember WAP, you weren't there"]
> when the 3G hype machine was starting to whip itself into a self-deluded
> frenzy, I imagined that by now we'd all be driving flying space-cars,
> wearing jet packs and using fixed cellular 3G connections to the WAN. Now I
> don't know that any of the guilty parties [the telcos, not the jetpack
> merchants] ever actually claimed that might be the case, but why are we all
> still using wired connections?
>
> Surely it's cheaper to maintain a bunch of base stations, than keeping
> millions of kilometers of wire and fibre lit up? And adding new capacity -
> all you need to do is hire some space on a transmission tower, or pay a
> secondary school a pittance and throw up a new cell site. No digging up
> roads or maintaining exchange buildings.

Nothing replaces fibre if you are interested in being able to talk to
the whole world, rather than just a radio tower a few hundred meters
away. The best you can do with RF is replace the local loop.

The RF technology to do some of what you want, however, was never 3G
mobile telephony (except perhaps in the imagination of some mobile
telephone advertising executives). The thing that was designed to do
fixed, as well as mobile, data networking is IEEE 802.16, which google
might find information about under the name WiMAX. I don't know how
this will work out but at least WiMAX was designed to be a data networking
service rather than a telephone service which can be made to carry data.

Dennis Ferguson