WISPs want clarity on 3.6 Ghz allocation

rob808 · 16-07-2015 11:29am

bk wrote: »

Answering my own question. According to the Comreg site there seems to be roughly 284 total in Donegal amongst all operators.

Though many seem to be GSM only (so no fiber backhaul at the moment) and many also seem to have all three operators on one site.

So I'd guess there are roughly 100 unique sites.

I can't see wisp being able offering 30mb and 6mb upload at affordable price to that of urban areas and the download allowance.I think if wisp did win it gona end up costing lot more since this network suppose to last 20 years plus being able to go higher than the 30mb can wisp even be able to do that?.I wonder what the cost be for 20 years with rent of the sites and electricity and the Spectrum.

bk · 16-07-2015 2:49pm

rob808 wrote: »

I can't see wisp being able offering 30mb and 6mb upload at affordable price to that of urban areas and the download allowance.I think if wisp did win it gona end up costing lot more since this network suppose to last 20 years plus being able to go higher than the 30mb can wisp even be able to do that?.I wonder what the cost be for 20 years with rent of the sites and electricity and the Spectrum.

Yes, from what clohamon is saying above, I don't think the business case for this is all that clear versus FTTH.

In order to even reach the 30Mb/s minimum, then it looks like a WISP would need to do a deal with all 3 mobile networks!!!

While this maybe less then €150,000 per site, I still don't see any mobile network not charging a WISP big money to access their masts.

Specially when you consider that two of the mobile networks are likely going to be competing with the WISPs for the NBP contracts. I just can't see Eircom/Meteor or Vodafone/SIRO giving favourable rates to a wisp to use their masts. Why would they help a competitor like that?

Only Three(o2) might be interested in helping, but then on their own they are unlikely to have sufficient coverage or sites.

What I see more likely to happen is for Eircom/Meteor and Vodafone/SIRO will bid for these FWA licenses. They will largely use FTTH, but for the most extreme cases they just might throw some FWA on their Meteor and Vodafone masts to reach them.

I don't see the WISPs winning much if any of the NBP money. They simply don't have the networks and scale for what is being proposed.

My only concern is making sure as little FWA is used by WISPs/Eircom/Siro as humanly possible and as much FTTH.

bk · 16-07-2015 2:50pm

Also if Comregs use case only results in 50% coverage of rural Donegal, then how does that help the NBP? The goal of which is 100% coverage of rural Ireland.

clohamon · 16-07-2015 10:54pm

bk wrote: »

Also if Comregs use case only results in 50% coverage of rural Donegal, then how does that help the NBP? The goal of which is 100% coverage of rural Ireland.

Making the spectrum available avoids the State facing litigation from the WISPs vis. the destruction of their livelihoods, because it technically allows them to continue in business and meet the requirements of the NBP (backhaul permitting).

The 50% refers to take-up (market penetration). If the other 50 % are capable of being reached, they also are covered and excluded from the NBP intervention (ie turn blue on the map)

rob808 · 16-07-2015 11:05pm

clohamon wrote: »

Making the spectrum available avoids the State facing litigation from the WISPs vis. the destruction of their livelihoods, because it technically allows them to continue in business and meet the requirements of the NBP (backhaul permitting).

The 50% refers to take-up (market penetration). If the other 50 % are capable of being reached, they also are covered and excluded from the NBP intervention (ie turn blue on the map)

The goverment making it possible so that if we end up getting FTTH Wisp will be able to access it at fair prices so they can't use that the NBP destroying there livelihood.They can become fibre resellers.

clohamon · 17-07-2015 11:35am

rob808 wrote: »

The goverment making it possible so that if we end up getting FTTH Wisp will be able to access it at fair prices so they can't use that the NBP destroying there livelihood.They can become fibre resellers.

The current 3.6Ghz licences end in July 2017. The NBP may not arrive in remote places until 2022 or later.

*Speculation*
It would be possible to take a punt on a licence, use it for FWA until the FTTH came, and then lease it to a MNO for use as small cell capacity(nomadic presumably) for the last, say, 12 years of the 15 year licence. It's expected that mobile equipment in that band will be available by 2020 so the MNOs might pay good money.

bk · 18-07-2015 11:19am

clohamon wrote: »

The current 3.6Ghz licences end in July 2017. The NBP may not arrive in remote places until 2022 or later.

*Speculation*
It would be possible to take a punt on a licence, use it for FWA until the FTTH came, and then lease it to a MNO for use as small cell capacity(nomadic presumably) for the last, say, 12 years of the 15 year licence. It's expected that mobile equipment in that band will be available by 2020 so the MNOs might pay good money.

I think that would be a very bad and risky investment strategy.

First of all your assumption of 2022 is far off. The NBP will start in 2017 and it is likely it will advance very quickly with many rural areas getting it soon after.

watty · 20-07-2015 12:29pm

3.6GHz is totally rubbish for Nomadic / Mobile except for Café femto cells or similar. It's only any use with roof top aerials.

clohamon · 20-07-2015 12:52pm

watty wrote: »

3.6GHz is totally rubbish for Nomadic / Mobile except for Café femto cells or similar. It's only any use with roof top aerials.

Let's be fair, I didn't mention mobile use.

Anyway here's what ComReg say..(though it reads a bit like a sales pitch)

As also noted in Document 14/101, the limited coverage range of cells operating at higher frequencies such as the 2.6 and 3.6 GHz bands makes these bands more suitable for deployment in high demand areas such as shopping centres, railway stations and airports, where large numbers of users congregate and require access to a localised capacity site. In fact, the large bandwidth available at these higher frequency bands makes them especially suitable for this purpose.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg1570.pdf p.33

watty · 20-07-2015 7:44pm

Expensive "revenue raising for Comreg" alternative to WiFi Hotspots. Mobile Femto Hotspots with slightly worse coverage.

Some_Person · 24-07-2015 8:57pm

Most WISPs have their infrastructure on existing buildings so costs for deploying bases that way are very low (assuming unlicensed frequencies which most use)
I think the average large WISPs (over 3000 customers) revenue would be around 250,000K per year.

€150,000 is an insane amount of money per site and would only be in the realm of large mobile operators.

bk · 26-07-2015 12:22pm

Some_Person wrote: »

Most WISPs have their infrastructure on existing buildings so costs for deploying bases that way are very low (assuming unlicensed frequencies which most use)
I think the average large WISPs (over 3000 customers) revenue would be around 250,000K per year.

The point is that in order to reach a minimum of 30Mb/s at peak times as it looks like will be required in order to compete for the NBP, the wisps would require a far greater density of sites then they currently have.

In fact it looks like they would need as many sites as the mobile networks have.

rob808 · 28-07-2015 7:15am

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/comreg-eyes-30m-broadband-spectrum-windfall-31407768.html

cgarvey · 01-08-2015 10:22am

Headline says it all, as per Watty's assertion.

watty · 03-08-2015 10:55am

To "regulators" better means "more revenue". The old idea of experts in communications advising ITU and National Governments then PROTECTING spectrum for a long time for the best uses is gone.
It means too that investments in services and infrastructure for anyone other than mobile operators is likely to become worthless.

The 800MHz sell off from TV (The Digital Dividend purely for Treasuries) was bad enough to cripple UHF Terrestrial (envisaged when there was no HD, never mind "3D" or 4K TV etc) but the 700MHz sell off is pure regulator greed. It's going to do almost nothing for consumers and even the 800MHz simply lets Mobile have fewer 900MHz and 1800MHz in rural, ultimately to save money, not any significant better service once an economic number of subscribers are on it.

It's fact that Comreg and Ofcom want us to ONLY have Cable and Satellite (they'd be happy if pay TV only) and sell the rest of Terrestrial TV band.

Ironically then the Mobile companies would use part of their spectrum for Broadcast, (as no Internet based system scales for live video), but it would be lower bitrate, lower quality, only on phones and Tablets and be entirely Pay TV. Even the RTE etc (or BBC in UK).

Mobile operators should not be allowed to re-allocate part of their spectrum as broadcast* to compete with Sky & UPC. It's a misuse of spectrum and distortion of market. But Ofcom and Comreg will support it as it will give them more licence revenue and Gov more VAT from Subscribers than Traditional TV broadcasting.

[* There are 3G and 4G specs for this, a poor quality expensive to run alternative to DVB-T and DVB-T2, but offers lock in Pay TV subs.]

bk · 03-08-2015 12:07pm

watty wrote: »

It's fact that Comreg and Ofcom want us to ONLY have Cable and Satellite (they'd be happy if pay TV only) and sell the rest of Terrestrial TV band.

And in fairness I think the regulators are absolutely right on this.

The reality is the general trend, in particular for young people, is that they couldn't care less about linear, add supported, broadcast TV. They just don't want it or have any interest in it. They want on demand video, when they want it and where they want it.

No one has the time or patient any more to sit around and wait for Friends at 9:30 on a Tuesday night! And I personally think it is a good thing that we are no longer slaves to our TV's any more, but that is beside the point.

Given this new reality, it would be a complete waste of valuable spectrum to spend it on 4k, 3d, etc. broadcast TV. Much better to spend it on mobile data, so they can actually give people what they want, on demand video from services like youtube, netflix, BBC/RTE player, etc.

It isn't the case that they only want us to have cable and satellite (and don't forget the emergence of IPTV), it is more that these services simply don't interfere with any other competing service, so there is no need to pick one over the other or limit them.

Personally the ideal scenario we should be aiming for is that every home in Ireland has a high quality wired broadband connection, preferably FTTH and that it powers high quality wifi.

Then wireless spectrum can almost completely given over to use for mobile data and actually used in the mobile context and not for carrying inadequate FWA and even TV services which are better delivered by a fixed connection.

Eventually music, video (radio/TV) will just be another IP service delivered over data networks, both fixed and mobile.

I agree with a lot of things you say watty, but in this case I think Comreg are largely right.

oscarBravo · 03-08-2015 4:09pm

bk wrote: »

It isn't the case that they only want us to have cable and satellite (and don't forget the emergence of IPTV)...

IPTV isn't really comparable to DVB-x TV platforms. It's a horribly, horribly inefficient way to deliver broadcast TV - and there still is a market for broadcast TV, despite the growth of on-demand streaming.

Yes, you can use multicast to deal with some of the inefficiencies of trying to use IPTV as a broadcast medium, but (a) it's complex and fragile, and (b) it doesn't work worth a damn on any wireless platform.

The Cush · 03-08-2015 5:51pm

Broadcast TV in the UHF band will be guaranteed to 2030 or even beyond but connected and converged are the keywords for the future and while the mobile tech we have today doesn't cut it for broadcast a lot can happen in 15 years.

Hi-power/Hi-tower LTE-A+ broadcast trials are already happening, sharing the same UHF channel with broadcast TV. By 2030 could 6G technology be in development?

watty · 03-08-2015 7:54pm

mobile tech we have today doesn't cut it for broadcast

It can today, the solution exists, but it will be pay TV only. It's actually just poorer bit rate* broadcast in the Mobile spectrum with worse geographic coverage.

This is the future Comreg and Ofcom are aiming for and it will BE FOREVER poorer quality, poorer coverage and Subscription only at Sky / UPC pricing. TV & Radio broadcast terrestrially should never become a service owned by the Mobile operators.

For terrestrial and Free to air there is NOTHING EVER better than the Radio and TV infrastructure we have, other than new coding schemes for newer content types. (e.g. MPEG4 instead of MPEG2 for UK, or something new for ultra HD with real 3D)

Don't say I didn't warn you when you or your children can only get decent TV via Sky or UPC, or feed phone / tablet with a subscription broadcast addon to have a lower quality picture on a 42" screen than DVB-T today.

Broadcast TV in the UHF band will be guaranteed to 2030

No, it's not, only in tinier parts or shared. Anyway 15 years is pathetic.

[* Like DAB, out of greed to fit more channels. Already due to saving money Terrestrial SD is poorer than perfect PAL reception before Widescreen and Terrestrial HD only 1440 not 1920, we should have a 3rd multiplex and same quality Satellite used to have, UK satellite has been reduced to match Terrestrial in many cases.]

The Cush · 03-08-2015 9:00pm

watty wrote: »

No, it's not

It will be.

The Pascal Lamy report, commissioned by the EC, has proposed the 2020-2030-2025 plan.

The plan proposes that
- by 2020 (+/- 2 years) broadcasting is cleared from the 700MHz band
- until 2030 broadcasting is protected in the remainder of the UHF band
- by 2025 a review of the UHF band be carried out to assess technology and market developments.

The has been welcomed by both the EBU and broadcasters but would like to see the 2030 date extended further. The mobile lobby would like to see the 2025 review carried out as early as 2022.

bk · 04-08-2015 12:49am

watty wrote: »

This is the future Comreg and Ofcom are aiming for and it will BE FOREVER poorer quality, poorer coverage and Subscription only at Sky / UPC pricing.

Nope, I think we are currently starting to see the smashing of the UPC and Sky duopoly and within the next 5 years, ad supported multichannel TV will basically become free, when bundled with broadband. Similar to how phone services are now basically free when bundled with TV.

We are already starting to see this with Eircom giving it's eVision TV service away for free for 6 months and now UPC has responded to this, giving away their TV service for free for 12 months!

This is only going to accelerate when Vodafone are expected to launch their own IPTV service very soon and we end up with 4 big companies competing aggressively for TV customers.

Add to that the rollout of FTTH by Eircom and SIRO and how stable and good next generation IPTV services will be any those platforms.

Finally look at the rise of Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO, etc.

With the quality of these awesome, on demand TV services, people are wondering why they should be paying €30 per month, for crappy, ad supported, linear TV.

With all these competitive pressure, I will guarantee that ad supported TV will end up becoming free on broadband, but even then it will continue to become less relevant.

watty wrote: »

Don't say I didn't warn you when you or your children can only get decent TV via Sky or UPC, or feed phone / tablet with a subscription broadcast addon to have a lower quality picture on a 42" screen than DVB-T today.

Having a 3 and 5 year old nephews, I can assure you they couldn't care less. Try suggesting to them to sit down and watch TV with adds on even a 50" TV and they look at you like you have two heads!

They spend their time with their heads stuck in iPads watching cartoons and minecraft videos on youtube and netflix!

No one under 30 is watching TV any more and it is only going to get worse.

The Cush · 04-08-2015 1:13am

bk wrote: »

Having a 3 and 5 year old nephews, I can assure you they couldn't care less. Try suggesting to them to sit down and watch TV with adds on even a 50" TV and they look at you like you have two heads!

They spend their time with their heads stuck in iPads watching cartoons and minecraft videos on youtube and netflix!

Have to agree with you there, I have 5 nephews/nieces ranging from 10 down to 2yrs 3 months, all have tablets with the youngest using a nabi passed down from her older 4½ sister recently. When she's with me without her nabi she's on my phone watching Peppa Pig or Frozen on demand, the others are minecraft mad, tv doesn't get a look in.

watty · 04-08-2015 9:59am

There is a problem of content.
US now dominates TV with mid to low quality content.
BBC, ITV, C4 have outsourced too much, closed down too much.

The Streaming services are cherry picking a very limited selection. very little long tail, Netflix removes content. They are the equivalent of video libraries. They also are inaccessible to many, a digital divide based on cap & performance. Also needs fixed infrastructure (any viable TV by Mobile will NEVER be streaming, but live linear broadcast, VOD is simply not scaleable by Wireless Unicast).

The reason for the "success" of streaming is a mix of below cost bundling (eVision free isn't sustainable) and TOTAL COLLAPSE of the quality of content over the last 30 years of tradition channels as they chase emulating Pay TV channels (even though total Pay TV is less than 10% of viewing) and become totally dependant on US imports for all but news and documentary.

No one under 30 is watching TV any more and it is only going to get worse.

I'm well over 30 and barely watch now. The content is garbage.

If I had UPC, I'd not be watching Netflix, anything on it I'd be interested in I'd buy on disc.
I know lots of people that have now cancelled it now that the novelty has worn off.

3 year olds shouldn't be watching much video or computer games. I hope we are not raising a generation of Zombies unable to have non-screen activities. Perhaps they are learning to read, paint, model, play, talk to others, socialise too ...

quality of these awesome, on demand TV services,

They are merely Video libraries, dominated by US mass market garbage. I can't see what is awesome.
Better than a video library.

bk · 04-08-2015 10:57am

watty wrote: »

They are merely Video libraries, dominated by US mass market garbage. I can't see what is awesome.
Better than a video library.

Game of Thrones, House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, etc.

But your post above proves my point. Broadcast TV is becoming increasingly irrelevant. So Comreg are right to reduce their focus on it and give over more spectrum to mobile data.

As for your comment about eVision being given away free not being sustainable, again I have to disagree.

The cost of running such a service is relatively minuscule once you already have a quality broadband network in place. Lets look at the costs:

- Some multicast servers and routing.
- Cheap and cheerful Mpeg 4 set top boxes

The above costs really aren't significant in the bigger picture, that just leaves licensing the TV channels.

With the exception of the BBC and sports channels, all the other channels make almost all their money off ads. But with people watching much less broadcast TV now, they are becoming desperate. So they will now give you their channels for free to be carried on your IPTV service, so they can reach as many potential viewers as possible. So that isn't a significant cost.

I'll remind you that in France, Free.fr will give you 1Gb/s FTTH, unlimited calls and 200 channel IPTV for just €30 per month!! So clearly it can be done.

People were previously just trapped in thinking that you had to pay €30 per month for pay TV due to the UPC/Sky duopoly. But that looks like it is being broken quickly now and I fully expect we will end up following the French model of TV being free when bundled with broadband for about €40 to €50.

watty · 08-08-2015 10:29am

Broadcast TV is becoming increasingly irrelevant. So Comreg are right to reduce their focus on it and give over more spectrum to mobile data.

No, it's madness, just because the content is poor at the minute. Mobile and Fixed broadband is complementary to Broadcast. IP connectivity, Satellite and Cable can't EVER replace Broadcast Spectrum. It needs to be ring fenced as a strategic, irreplaceable Nation asset. The content and quality is a COMPLETELY separate issue. It's not Comreg's job to do that, their agenda is driven by short term Treasury greed, not Spectrum Management and Protection.

PayTV should naturally be 50% approx. It's crazy high at over 80% in this country. Only a fibre player can at all compete with Sky/UPC and it in the long term will be no cheaper. Satellite costs nearly nothing to deliver compared to TV on cable or Fibre.

Note that over 90% of TV watched on Sky and UPC is actually still the main, free Terrestrial Broacast stations you regard as irrelevant and the majority on non-Cinema content on Streaming is originally on Broadcast TV.

Pay TV needs to drop by about 30% to 50%, any "good deals" from alternates to UPC/Sky are only temporarily cheap. Good content costs money.

Dero · 08-08-2015 10:47am

watty wrote: »

No, it's madness, just because the content is poor at the minute.

There's more to it than the quality of content though. People have adapted (or are adapting) to the fact that online content is 100% on-demand; you watch what you want, when you want. Broadcast can never match that. Even if every TV channel had high quality programming all the time, the idea of just watching whatever happens to be on is dead.

I do agree with regard to the technical quality of broadcast vs. streaming, but I think I'm in a significant minority there. I know people who still profess to being unable to distinguish HD from SD...

watty · 08-08-2015 5:38pm

online content is 100% on-demand; you watch what you want, when you want. Broadcast can never match that

Two different kinds of thing. They are complementary.
Streaming also is 1000s of times more expensive for a mass market, forever than Broadcast.
Broadcast really only needs half a dozen good channels (approx) to cover 90% of viewing, Multichannel actual Pay TV channels (Channels with 0.5% viewing are the more popular ones, even Sky is less than 2%) are a waste of spectrum and dilute and degrade the good ones, Niche channels are better suited to Streaming, which if viewing is less 0.1% can be cheaper than Terrestrial Broadcast. The majority of Satellite channels are actually less than 0.1%!.

bk · 09-08-2015 2:07pm

I'm sorry watty but you are dead wrong on this. I'm afraid you are simply out of touch with the trends of the TV industry around the world that is all quickly switching to streaming.

The fact that broadcasting is technically a 1000 times more efficient is irrelevant when people simply aren't interested in broadcast TV any more! It certainly isn't a 1000 times more efficient if no one is watching it!

People want to watch TV on their terms, not the broadcasters terms. They want to watch what they want, when they want (and where they want).

Good content costs money.

Yes it does! But remember, the majority of the most popular channels (with the obvious exception of BBC) make their money from advertising. Almost non of the money you pay Sky or UPC actually goes to the broadcasters or content producers! It mostly goes to paying Sky and UPC only for their platforms. Most of the money made by broadcasters is made from advertising.

That is why they are very happy to show their channels on upcoming IPTV platforms like eVision and on their on online players & catch up services as over the top services. The more people who see their ads, the better.

They couldn't care less about UPC and Sky and would in fact be very happy to see their duopoly broken up. That is why they are delighted to deliver their channels on Eircom eVision, etc. for almost free. And this is how we are going to see UPC and Sky's duopoly being broken.

The days of paying Sky/UPC €30 for ad-supported TV are over, the TV market is changing to the following two options:

- Ad supported TV is completely free (delivered as an over the top service on broadband).
- You pay for a sub for ad free TV, i.e. Netflix, HBO, etc.

Interestingly this will be a return to how cable TV started out in the US. It started out as a subscription for ad-free pay TV channels as an alternative to the ad infested national over the air network channels.

clohamon · 04-10-2015 12:14pm

ComReg have published the consultation submissions

Most of the FWA providers seem to be working off a common position document. That's BB Net, Digital Forge, Lightnet, permaNET, Ripplecom, WestNet, Ker Net.

Vodafone says this spectrum is not suitable for mobile, and wants more clarity on 2.3Ghz and 2.6 Ghz bands that are coming up.

Everyone thinks the reserve prices are too high.

Real Broadband of Kerry says,

"Additionally the auction process requires a Masters Degree or above to understand how this works, most likely bidders are likely to be bidding against themselves because of a lack of understanding in the bidding process/method"

Ripplecom have provided details of their NBP trial near Clonmel on page 97 and conclude..

The NGA trial conducted by Ripplecom has demonstrated that it is possible to deliver NGA speeds in rural environments using wireless technologies. Radio technology is constantly evolving and considering the roadmap from Cambium Networks the improved features to be delivered in the PMP455 demonstrate that while the PMP450 can deliver the NGA speeds required today as well as those for tomorrow, the progressive changes that are expected beyond the year 2020 will be available in line with technology improvements in the radio equipment.

clohamon · 21-10-2015 8:13pm

In the latest NBP mapping consultation PWC seem to be indicating that spectrum will be found somehow for planned NGA investments by WISPS. Doesn't say what sort of spectrum or how much of it, or even how much it will cost.

Technical plans that propose a solution which is dependent on the use of spectrum not yet secured will be treated on the assumption that the necessary spectrum will be secured by the relevant operator, i.e. potential uncertainty around future spectrum allocation as such will not lead to a negative assessment in the technical test.

There are other criteria affecting wireless including the likelihood of interference, how much optical fibre is in the system and reliability.

For wireless link budgets, the cell edge probability should be 95% and the cell area probability should be 98% or greater in order for the coverage to be mapped

WISPs want clarity on 3.6 Ghz allocation

Comments