watty Registered User


You can have "unlimited" in which case you might not be able to connect at all and it will be really slow.

Or it can be capped at 1Gbyte and then you almost always connect and speed is better.

Mobile is for Intermittent "on the go" use, a compliment to real broadband, not a replacement. Same applies to LTE.

4 people have thanked this post
watty Registered User

The sequel

Here is a good regulation

The new regulations from OFTA force any operators offering an unlimited service to ensure they have the network capacity to do so, and to be clearer about any other limitations on service.

2 people have thanked this post
watty Registered User

More LTE bands are not for more speed, not for Broadband, but to provide more capacity

LTE, on the other hand, promises to be a nightmare for frequent flyers and handset manufacturers alike. There are more than 40 bands allocated to LTE around the world, and little in the way of standardisation with TDD and FDD variants being deployed in the same band in different regions. 2.6GHz is the most widely recognised band for LTE, but 800MHz is a close second with Europe in an ideal position to push it.

It's no secret that Comreg's Consultation on the 2.6GHz here (Used by UPC MMDS) is in favour of ditching MMDS for LTE. We know how Comreg Consultations work too.

Remember, all of this it for capacity, More users, using more data centric cloud applications on the go, not to provide Broadband replacement for fixed users. You'd need 6x the spectrum per band and far more base stations than anyone will ever build.

An LTE network with about as many basestations as 3G will cost about 2 Billion Euro for Ireland. A bit more than fibre and using very much more electricity to deliver on average 1/100th to 1/1000th of the performance (FTTC vs FTTH).

1 person has thanked this post
clohamon Registered User

watty said:

An LTE network with about as many basestations as 3G will cost about 2 Billion Euro for Ireland.

Could you explain this bit. I thought LTE would replace the GSM network as it became obsolete.

watty Registered User

clohamon said:
Could you explain this bit. I thought LTE would replace the GSM network as it became obsolete.

Doesn't make much difference other than to spectrum if it's an addition or a replacement. The cost is the same.
It would be a little cheaper to replace 3G that has had backhaul upgraded for iHSPA/HSPA+ etc.

Actually for voice, you could argue that GSM is superior to 3G or LTE. LTE has to use VOIP. It has no native voice. I'd certainly not buy an LTE phone that didn't have GSM and 3G also. Especially if travelling.

The operators are keener to replace GSM with 3G. But that's for complex operational reasons and operating only one system. LTE will not be cheap, it's simpler in the "back office" as unlike GSM and 3G it's both not only just IP only but natively IP.

The Proposed 800MHz, 2300MHz and 2600MHz bands are not GSM Replacement. GSM is 900 and 1800. The 2 Billion figure could be just one band. It was a Vodafone estimate.

1 person has thanked this post
clohamon Registered User

watty said:
Doesn't make much difference other than to spectrum if it's an addition or a replacement. The cost is the same.

The mast network must be worth something?

watty Registered User

I'm sure the 2 Billion assumes existing mast sites.

1 person has thanked this post
watty Registered User

Is the so called "Digital Dividend" the worst mistake since start of Domestic broadcasting in 1921?

In a statement, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport admitted “some households will get interference to their digital terrestrial TV (DTT, or Freeview) reception when part of the spectrum being auctioned is used for 4G services”.

From £180m to fund 4G TV interference solutions

The LTE on 800MHz will not realise the stupid amounts of money that 3G licences raised (which crippled rollout and penalised customers with higher charges).
It can't deliver Broadband as the low frequency means cell sizes are too big and the spectrum "band" isn't wide enough for even only 6 duplex 20MHz LTE channels.

Decent quality HD and audio and number of channels, not to mention 3D and Local TV can't fit into the remaining band.

There is plenty of poorly utilised bands, wide enough for 6 x 20MHz Duplex channels for LTE with more controlled cell size.

So in the end the "Digital Dividend" is just a short term revenue boost for Treasuries via the Regulators. It's not good for the Consumer, it's bad for Terrestrial TV competing with Pay TV giants like Murdoch or Cable. Satellite isn't under local national control. Cable or Satellite don't permit Ad-hoc on the go or Mobile reception.

IPTV and Streaming Radio isn't a viable mass market alternate to Terrestrial Radio broadcast unless there is a massive Fibre to the Home universal infrastructure with servers at each major node. Also it's tethered.

800MHz mobile has been proved to cause even more disruption to cable TV and Cable broadband than to DTT.

So if they are determined to auction the 800MHz part of TV band, (so called digital dividend) the only worth while use is FIXED wireless using roof top directional aerials. That increases the capacity by x8 to x16, allows real rural broadband and avoids interference with TV and cable.

Why will they never do it? They could put such conditions on the Licences. Because the licences would realise about 1/10th or 1/100th of the instant revenue. Governments are stupid and obsessed with short term income and expenditure rather than proper long term planning with real benefits to local economy.

The Short term once off income auctioning the Mobile licence for 800MHz (so called Digital dividend) adds no Broadband and creates a revenue stream from the consumer that leaves the country. Very few extra long term jobs created.

The "Digital Dividend" will be robbing the consumers across Europe and USA.

1 person has thanked this post
watty Registered User


and so called "White Space" radio will be much worse.

1 person has thanked this post
drunkmonkey Registered User

LTE /LTE Advanced is better than what most of us have to put up with at the moment, I'll take LTE over eircom copper when it arrives. If mobile broadband isn't broadband then our current copper network isn't broadband either.

Sweden seems to have got it right with LTE, interesting bbc report on the technology here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9672822.stm

I think for some LTE will be broadband if their in the right area.

watty Registered User

No Only if you are the only person on the mast.

For a lightly loaded mast it's no different at all from current 3G as Comreg offers 5MHz channels not 20MHz.

Only at 2300MHz and 2600MHz can LTE offer better than 3G. Certainly not on 800MHz.

Sweden implemented a RAN. We are not. Even there it's NOT Broadband.

1 person has thanked this post
oscarBravo Custodiam ipsos custodes

Here's something I came across today: a comparison of power consumption on the handset between GSM/UMTS and LTE:

The test is run on different phones by placing a call with a constant source of sound (music) until the handset dies. The two green bars represent the same phone with different baseband technologies, and the difference is dramatic.

In all cases the test is performed with a cellular signal of at least -75dBm.

1 person has thanked this post
watty Registered User

LTE is IP only, so it's less back office systems, simpler to administrate and only needs an IP backhaul. But SMS has to be simulated and voice is entirely SIP/VOIP based.

Older systems use TDM and dedicated on-air interface for Voice, "free" system handshaking & overhead for SMS, X25 for GPRS and IP on top of some other interface for data and also almost native IP for HSPA mode data, so more latency and complexity on the backhaul.

LTE is only really good as a Public WiFi Hotspot replacement with better range that Phone operators get to charge for. On the down side (for them) it turns them really into an ISP not phone service provider. Traditionally the revenue profit margin on SMS is Extremely high, voice is high and on Data it's low. This is why Three makes so little money as their proportion of data customers is higher that O2, Meteor or Vodaphone.

LTE has to be more expensive than GSM or 3G/HSPA for the users. The big advantages are for Road Warriors in Urban locations who have real broadband at home/office, gadget /phone makers and the Infrastructure providers.

Ironically to leverage LTE profitably the Phone companies need countries with very good fixed broadband and lots of fibre. Then they can deploy cells cheaper and also put loads of Femto cells to capture the existing Public WiFi market. Their ideal scenario is real mobile users that only use it "on the go", then performance is typically x2 to x5 that of a country where many are using it as an alternative to fixed broadband. Also they need to charge about €45+ per month excluding phone subsidy.

LTE isn't the solution to lack of 3G speeds or lack of Rural Broadband. It's a expensive "on the go" technology that needs a good fibre infrastructure and people that already have cheap, fast fixed broadband. Fixed Broadband (including line rental and for over 120G cap) ought to be towards €20 not heading towards €50 or €60.

1 person has thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!