Re: First 4G LTE network launched

Hans,


hwh schreef:
Moving from HSDPA 7,2 Mbps to 14,4 Mbps technology does not at all mean
that you double the total capacity of your cell.

That's what I said...it just means speeds go up, and after some time
more devices will be using more speed, benefiting others.

True, but keep in mind that the gain isn't necessairy that much. It
depends on how many users have sufficient good radio-conditions to use
these higher speeds.

E.g. in rural areas, the gain isn't all that much.




BTW. Based on what I have been reading; there are quite a number of
people who concider the most lickely use of LTE not as a replacement for
3G in the mobile-market; but as a replacement for what is now the
"wimax" market. (That's why LTE now also supports the 450 Mhz band, to
be able to compete with cdma450).

It doesn't really matter. It means mobile IP-based communication. You
can use that to read mail, watch the weather radar or listen to the
radio or anything else.

That's true application-wize, but not network-wize. A 3G (and 4G)
network is designed for bursty traffic; not for continues streaming.
(that's why they moved from dedicated-channel communication like UMTS to
common-channel communication HSxPA).


If you have very much traffic (like the terrestial networks) that's not
a issue as internet-streaming -if everybody on a DSLAM would be
listening to a internet-radio-stream- the total consumed bandwidth would
be only some 5 % of the total available bandwidth on the "lowest-bitrate
common channel" (in this case, the fible upstream).


In networks with limited bandwidth (like mobile internet) that's
different. 30 to 40 users listening to an internet-stream in a 3G
network will eat up 100 % of the total capacity of the "lowest-bitrate
common channel" (in this case, the radio-cell).



But this means you can only use the frequencies that have been assigned
to you (as a country). IIRC, the spectrum in the Northern part of
Belgium that falls into this catagory is 2 or 3 channels (still unclear)
of 8 Mhz wide! So this is in total 16 or 24 MHz (which you have to
divide in "up" and "down") and this is thus far of of the "70 to 80
Mbps" (for a 20 Mhz bandwidths) that the LTE sales-documents talk about.

This is not correct. The whole EU will use 790 MHz plus for mobile
communications. Of course the usual agreements will be in place for use
near the borders, comparable to GSM, 3G etc.

Yep. You are correct. I stand corrected.

See here:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/radio_spectrum/topics/reorg/dividend/index_en.htm

To bad it will only become effective in 2015.



Just compere this with the almost 200 Mhz of bandwidth around the 2.6
Ghz that have been licened to the new operators in the Netherlands this
year (which can chose between wimax and LTE).

Still, 800 is considered to be prime real estate because it will enable
operators to use far less base stations in rural areas and better indoor
coverage in cities.

True, but you should still do the calculation on how much bandwidth you
are using for this compaire to the total bandwidth.

This will of course depend on what actual bitrate they will be able to
achieve over these networks.
If you look at -say- rural networks, the bitrates will of course be much
lower as must people are in very bad radio-conditions.

It will be interesting to see how well these networks will do in real
terms and what "acceptable use policies" will be applied.




Look. There is a fundamental difference between broadcasting and
communication-networks.
In the case of broadcasting, the bandwidth is payed for by the
broadcaster. In communication, the bandwidth you use is payed for by
you, the consumer.
Please do keep this in mind!

Yes, but it doesn't matter. We are starting to get used to listen to the
radio at home via the internet. We have to pay for that as well.

Correct, that's indeed a typical situation of digital radio
piggy-backing on some other service.
You pay for internet-access and get the possibility of internet-radio
added in that price.

However, as explained, that only works as the total consumed bandwidth
for digital radio is relative small compaired to the total bandwidth, so
the ISPs do not need to make an additional investment for this "add-on".

However if you have a situation where (say) mass-scale internet-radio
would take up (say) 1/3 of the total available bandwidth of a
radio-interface and ISPs will need to upgrade their networks for that;
that changes the whole story.
I do not see any company making investments of tens of millions of
euros; just for the sake of a service which isn't willing (or able) to
pay for that.

It's much easier to install a box that blocks high-bitrate streams that
last for longer then (say) 20 minutes or dynamically reduce your bitrate
over time if you run a continues stream.

Just look at the "acceptable use policy" of (say) clearwire in Belgium:
"the aim of this network is to provide a good 'normal use'
surfing-experience for everybody."

Internet-radio is not "surfing".


gr, hwh
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: office assistant (office 2003)
    ... display driver with our own that draws compresses graphics and draws them ... enormous amounts of bandwidth. ... Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server ... Quest Software, Provision Networks Division ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services)
  • Re: Missed goal
    ... every network affiliate has multiple digital sub-channels? ... They'd have to add not only the bandwidth but the hardware at each ... affiliate to handle multiple feeds. ... networks and their affiliates are using. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Will broadcast TV ever go away?
    ... networks have chosen to use. ... about the various cable/satellite networks, though it would seem to me ... | the same exact material on similarly native resolution screens let me ... the bandwidth might be more available. ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: Every spot a hotspot?
    ... network for patrons with laptops but I'm about 400 or 500 meters from ... er um are kind enough to share their bandwidth by not protecting ... thief can get passwordz and cardz. ... I would worry more about the fact that your email passwords are transmitted in plain text over open wireless networks making it a trivial matter for someone to "hijack" them. ...
    (alt.2600)