3 to provide "coverage" units

thebman

So is his train of thought that if he keeps lying it will eventually become true?

bealtine

Headshot wrote: »

(hopefully im in the right thread)
taught this might interest ireland offline

buhaha and the moon is made of green cheese .

cowboy1981

Headshot wrote: »

REPLY

The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Mr E Ryan)



As part of the National Broadband Scheme (NBS) contract, 3 will deliver the following minimum speeds at launch at the edge of cell:

· Minimum download speed will be 1.2 Mbps while the maximum download speed is 5Mbps and
· Minimum upload speed is 200Kbps while the maximum upload speed will be 5Mbps.


These speeds are comparable to what is currently available in the marketplace in urban areas. Additionally, the service will have a contention ratio of 36:1......

Note that the Contention rate is additional to the Minimum Download spec. This means that the 1.2Mbps will be shared with 36 other active users, giving an actual download speed of 33kbps - less than dial-up. As long as they deliever 33kbps, the terms of the contract will be ok.

watty

That's not exactly what the contention means

The 36:1 is a subscriber contention. Not real time user contention.

If you have a 10Mbps resource and 1Mbps package, then for no contention it supports 10 people. Thus you may sell it to 360 people for 36:1 contention.

At peak times on Cable, DSL or FWALA you may experience a 4:1 slow down compared to your package. That's a real time contention of 4:1. The number of customers will be sold at UP TO 48:1 for that resource.
For DSL with say 480 customers on a small exchange with 3Mbps package this means the backhaul has to support 30 Mbps, i.e. 10 customers with no contention, for 48:1 contention.

Since people are reading web pages & email, a 4:1 slowdown means a lot more than 4 customers are online. This is a problem for 3G/I-HSPDA as it only supports
3.6Mbps = 24 connections
7.2Mbps = 48 connections
14.4Mbps = 96 connections.
It's absolutely not an "always on" system.

Also they can't control at all the selling contention to a sector.
Since they have up to 2,500 people per mast (fine for phone calls), if there is only 25% takeup that's ON AVERAGE 625/3 = 208 per sector. The 1Mbps is a very Optimistic speed for over 50% of the cell. That would make contention 208:1
But random things clump.
A significant proportion of sectors will have twice and some much less. You can't control contention on a Mobile "user takes it home" system. Especially as we have no postcodes.

So lots of sectors will have 400 customers.(at 25% overall takeup). That's 400:1 contention and only about 1/5th can connect at once. If 1/20th (20) download at once the cell shrinks to half size cutting off 40 people.

If we take Sector average throughput as 2.5Mbps it's still way outside 36:1 contention
at 84:1 average to over 200:1 in many cases. For 20 users simultaneously you will get 150kbps or less. That's only 1/4 to 1/10th of the subscribers!


This sort of stuff needs statistics, probability, Stochastic models. Erlangs etc.

160 masts is what you would put for phone calls. Which is really what 3 is about.

Quick comparison of duration and quantity of phone calls and data rate needed (=12kbps) and for computer broadband use (1.2Mbps alleged by Minister as lowest speed, which has to be for sole user of a sector):
Minutes a month = 43200
Average calls per phone user 100 out + 100 in = 200, thus about 0.005 fraction of the time and about 0.01 of the sector capacity. Or 0.015 x 0.01 of peak time capacity. = 0.00015.
If a user is online 1hr a day (p2p are online 24hrs and are at least 10% of users) = 1800 min a month = 0.04 fraction of time, or likely 0.12 of peak time. If we are generous and say 1Mbps is 0.4 of sector capacity, thus 0.048 of peak time capacity.

Computer user is thus 0.048/0.00015 times more traffic than a phone user if online 1 hr a day and phone user makes 100min a month calls and receives same qty of calls.
Traffic is 320 times for 1/2 the money! No wonder excess Cap is charged over 250 Euro a Gigabyte.

Since the 160 masts is obviously based on phone call traffic and contention, it can be seen that many data users will often be unable to connect at all. Some users on some masts will get 5Mbps speeds all the time. Other users on other masts will never get more than 500kbps and may often see dialup speeds.

120ms is minimum latency. As more users connect (not even transferring much) the latency rises toward 2000ms. 70ms latency is poor. Basic latency to your ISP's edge router should be under 50ms. On decent Broadband it's currently 10ms to 25ms!

watty

cowboy1981 wrote: »

Note that the Contention rate is additional to the Minimum Download spec. This means that the 1.2Mbps will be shared with 36 other active users, giving an actual download speed of 33kbps - less than dial-up. As long as they deliever 33kbps, the terms of the contract will be ok.

Actually because it's CDMA based, the speeds on average drop even lower. You could get 30kbps with 20 users, though AVERAGE speed per user across whole sector would be 180kbps. With 36 simultaneous transfers you would have a sector or cell average of about 150kbps per person, but nearly 1/2 the users could experience 30kbps, assuming they don't disconnect because the signal is too poor.

If you got those speeds they are likely in breach of contention. They are in breach of contention before they turn it on. If 25% of NBS people sign up the contention is easily over 200:1 on most masts. Not everyone goes on line at once. THAT is the theory of contention. If you get a big slow down the design or subscriber contention is making the wrong assumptions about busy hour(s) traffic.

Not enough masts.

crawler

Question:-

I have a (from any provider) 3G connection and I connect a router to my 3G connection and then place an ATA behind that router and a standard phone to the ATA. (assume I can tunnel an IP address to the ATA/Router for this exercise)

I then leave the connection to become idle/sleep

If someone calls me using the number I assigned to that ATA, will the phone ring?

If no, then it's not always-on - if yes, then it probably is?

Anyone know what DOES happen?

watty

It can work when you are disconnected, but:

The base station wakes up the modem and the connection is made, if the cell hasn't breathed.

However it's less likely to ring than a 3G call due to limits of data connections, contention and varying signal and the IP problem below.


Short answer:
It pretends to be always on.



Issues:
If the SIP VOIP is not provided by "3", it won't work sometimes incoming even when you are online, since P2P SIP uses your IP address not a phone number and Blueface or such DOES have a number, but their server has to find your IP to create the session.

There are two problems:
1) The IPs are dynamic. Even if the signal drops and your router auto-reconnects the IP can be different.

2) 3 use a proxy. Proxies and SIP are evil as you well know. Maybe everyone on NBS will have same IP. Then SIP incoming will generally not work even if you are on line.


Second Answer:
If you always get the same IP it can work, or if your router/ATA combo uses "presence" to essentially keep the SIP server (even Blueface's) informed of your IP and status.

If you have no "presence" set up to the VOIP providers SIP server it's likely to be unable to do incoming calls. P2P SIP via real IP (as is possible even on a regular handset plugged into ATA if you know the code to enable IP dialing) incoming is never going to work.

Skype uses its own form of "presence" so a SkypeIn Number ought to work, even with a proxy.

Another Problem.
14.4Mbps only allows 96 connections. With the number of Masts 3 is planning I estimate 200 on average and up tp 400 to 800 subscribers per sector (as they will not be conveniently evenly spread on all 160x 3 sectors). Assuming take up is 25%

If everyone had VOIP it's a snag running presence!

If 5 people are transferring Data on sector you can have only about 5 VOIP conversations.

cowboy1981

watty wrote: »

Another Problem.
14.4Mbps only allows 96 connections. With the number of Masts 3 is planning I estimate 200 on average and up tp 400 to 800 subscribers per sector (as they will not be conveniently evenly spread on all 160x 3 sectors). Assuming take up is 25%

If everyone had VOIP it's a snag running presence!

Presumably the same applies to all users who are trying to run always-on applications? As Broadband applications develop, there are likely to be more and more always-on applications running on separate devices....eg Internet radios, I-Players, Medi-alarms, Heart-rate monitors, Burglar alarms, Smart-metering devices(one of Eamon Ryans pet-subjects). While there may only be a small number of VOIP users, collectively all of these always-on applications are likely to demand large numbers of simultaneous connections.

...of course in NBS areas, each application will require a separate dongle and €19.99 per month subscription (no router provided) - that should help to throttle demand.

cowboy1981

watty wrote: »

That's not exactly what the contention means

The 36:1 is a subscriber contention. Not real time user contention.

.....

This sort of stuff needs statistics, probability, Stochastic models. Erlangs etc.

160 masts is what you would put for phone calls. Which is really what 3 is about.
.....

Thanks for all the technical detail Watty...but the point I was trying to make is that as long as 3 deliver 33kbps to each customer, they will be compliant with the contract requirements, because the Govt have specified that Download speed and Contention together contribute to the minimum specification. However, if they consistently fail to deliver 33kbps, and this can be proved, then the Govt should be able to recover the €79M of State and EU subsidy.

watty

It wouldn't be compliant, because that is not how Contention is defined.

number of customers allowed at 36:1 contention =
number of masts x number of sectors x (number of simultaneous 1Mbps users) x 36

Assuming the customers are EVENLY spread over all sectors.

If they have one more customer than that they are in breach.

So being generous about where people are in the sector we can allow 4 users with 1Mbps. (If one user is at the outer 30% of area, then you can only have one user).

160x 3 x 4 = 1,920 customers without contention
Thus they are allowed 69,120 customers. IF they are perfectly evenly spread and none in outer 30% of cell area.

More realistically less than 17,280 customers (at least one is online in a cell in outer 1/3rd area, thus "no contention" is really one person per sector).

That's 4% to 16% of the NBS population depending how generous you are. If 1% of the NBS population are transferring data the speed will be on average about 450kbps and as low as dialup for up to 1/3rd of them.

There is no wiggle room. It's not broadband. They can't limit contention to 36:1 subscribers sold per sector and in properly provisioned Broadband areas the takeup quickly rises to 25%. That would be 55,000 households at least. Contention would be at least 116:1

But due to fact that spread of population is not even with masts or sectors and uneven takeup I'd expect contention to be 300:1 or higher in places.

Due to cell breathe, slow speeds, disconnections, etc, people will not much use it or pack it in or believe BB is rubbish when they get sub 100kbps speeds and > 200ms latency. There will be high churn.

The actual speeds tell you nothing actually about subscriber contention. The Number of customers and their addresses tell you this.

How is the department going to monitor Contention?

cowboy1981

watty wrote: »

It wouldn't be compliant, because that is not how Contention is defined.

Perhaps - but how would an end-user prove that the reason for the the slow speed is because they don't understand contention? As long as the download speed is >33kbps, they can blame contention as being the reason for the low speed. The Govt. will never police the contract - even if they had the capability to do so, it would mean they would have to admit to a huge mistake.

If the download speed is <33kbps it should be easy for end-users to prove that the NBS is non-compliant.

watty

If the download speed is lower than 400kbps it's not compliant.

Real 1Mbps broadband packages at 48:1 contention don't often go below 300kbps. At 36:1 and similar usage patterns you'd expect 400kbps at peak time and nearly 1Mbps off peak.

With a 1Mbps package on Metro Wireless, DSL or Cable you would need over 300:1 subscriber contention to see 36kbps. (not that you are likely to sign up to less than 3Mbps now).

Contention Limits are Subscriber packages sold / available bandwith

Actual real time contention is meant to be much much lower on the theory that not everyone is using Internet, and people read a web page before clicking on another.

This is the ONLY reason why anyone is allowed to sell contended packages at all. If you actually SEE 36:1 contention (or anywhere near it) in real time the ISP has over sold. The subscription contention would be up to 400:1 or more! Satellite sellers used to do this as they are not so easily regulated. Even now some are 85:1 to 200:1

As people find more hours to use the Internet and more applications the ISPs have to sell lower contention. Real broadband is thus moving to 20:1 and even 10:1 so people can use it more.

This also is another reason for a 12GByte cap. It limits real time contention.

watty

This is 48:1 contended 6Mbps package in Limerick at peak time on FIXED Wireless Broadband


If it was 2MBps that would suggest over 90:1 SUBSCRIBER contention.

The real time contention is 1.3:1 due to usage patterns.

The actual number of subscribers could be nearly 450 on a sector, depending on mast sector speed and what packages are sold to how many users.

14.4Mbps I-HSPA and 100Mbps LTE are marketing fantasies. If my Wireless mast was LTE instead of Metro I'd be getting 580k or less. Assuming the signal can go 12.5km!

Mobile systems are optimised for Mobile use.

cowboy1981

watty wrote: »

If the download speed is lower than 400kbps it's not compliant.

Real 1Mbps broadband packages at 48:1 contention don't often go below 300kbps. At 36:1 and similar usage patterns you'd expect 400kbps at peak time and nearly 1Mbps off peak.

With a 1Mbps package on Metro Wireless, DSL or Cable you would need over 300:1 subscriber contention to see 36kbps. (not that you are likely to sign up to less than 3Mbps now).

Contention Limits are Subscriber packages sold / available bandwith

Actual real time contention is meant to be much much lower on the theory that not everyone is using Internet, and people read a web page before clicking on another.

This is the ONLY reason why anyone is allowed to sell contended packages at all. If you actually SEE 36:1 contention (or anywhere near it) in real time the ISP has over sold. The subscription contention would be up to 400:1 or more! Satellite sellers used to do this as they are not so easily regulated. Even now some are 85:1 to 200:1

Watty - in the information provided by 3 & Govt, where exactly does it say that download speeds of 400kbps observed by the user are non-compliant?

Your analysis appears to be based on the industry norms from reasonable DSL providers etc - where contention is rarely ever bad enough to be noticeable. My point is that none of this appears to be nailed down in the minimum specification published by the Minister. What is reasonable to you or me doesn't matter - if the NBS wants to exploit the minimum specification by offering minimum download speed at maximum contention, it appears they can do so without any penalty. As you point out "If you actually SEE 36:1 contention (or anywhere near it) in real time the ISP has over sold." I accept that this will mean the true contention rate is much higher - maybe 400:1 - but there appears to be nothing stopping 3 from doing this, and all evidence on the Megathread suggests they already do this, even in urban areas, where providing capacity should be cheaper than for NBS.

You mention regulation being a means of controlling contention rates - but has ComReg ever policed this? Apart from eircom and the other DSL service providers, nobody else seems to publish any information on the actual contention rates they use. I have never seen anything published for cable, wireless, satellite etc. I'm not suggesting that these guys are all exploiting it like 3, but the whole thing seems to be clouded in secrecy. As you point out, the Satellite guys are certainly deploying much higher levels of contention. Bottom line is that it is not regulated at all.

watty

The FWALA licences are all limited to 48:1 in the licence. On Comregs site.

1) The performance of I-HSPA can exceed 6Mbps, for a sole user of a sector with fantastic signal. But for a significant number of people they will never see 1.2Mbps.

2) It's not up to nor possible for users to police an ISP.

3) Mathematics, Physics and Engineering PROVE that a Mobile service (unless an astronomic un-feasible number of masts are deployed) can't provide Broadband.

4)160 x 7.2Mbps I-HSPA 2.1GHz masts can't provide 100% NBS coverage, nor the stated contention, period. Arguing about what the connection speed you get after it's installed is irrelevant.

5) 3 was /is going to do these masts ANYWAY, nothing to do with NBS. That's why they can do a cheap price. A big slice of the €79 pays for subsidizing satellite monthly sub and install for duration of the scheme. 160 masts is about right for phone coverage if you aren't worried about absolutely 100%.

This scheme even before it signs a single customer is not Broadband. It's not scaleable or sustainable. LTE is irrelevent to 3 and the tender and even LTE can't deliver the original spec without over 1,500 masts. It's a short range Urban system. At reasonable Rural distances and loading even LTE is under 400kbps. Besides it's easily 5 years away. 3 may not get a licence or have money to roll it out.

If the NBS is cancelled tomorrow 3 will very likely do almost many masts as they would if they kept the NBS. The service would be identical. What would change? Well 2,000 to 5,000 people would not get free €1,200 value VSAT installs (6M easily) and €100 a month satellite for €19.95 for 2 or 3 years (€14.4M subsidy of subscription, €100 a month later). With 1.2m to 1.8m dishes if it's to work in the rain. About €20M wasted on Avanti.

So the only real loser if NBS didn't happen at all is Avanti (a UK satellite reseller) to tune of €10M to €25M depending on takeup.

I bet the real Wireless Broadband suppliers (rural WISPs) could do a lot with €10M to €25M never mind €79M.

The most expensive bandwidth in the world is Satellite. The second most expensive bandwidth in the world is Mobile Data.

The EU specifically permitted a scheme that was affordable, scalable and sustainable under part of the Article 88 procedure, for their €40M. This scheme fails on all three.

clohamon

DCENR have updated their website with their own NBS FAQ section.

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Communications/Communications+Development/NBS+FAQs


Following address monitoring and quality issues.

What will happen if the deadlines are not met by the service provider?

3 has entered a 68 month contract with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources with phased payments made only on reaching defined milestones. The Department will have in place a rigorous monitoring mechanism and will actively monitor 3’s performance and compliance with contractual obligations under the NBS contract. The Department has recourse to a number of controls to ensure compliance with relevant contractual commitments.

Will the NBS address the issue of quality?

3’s NBS solution has proposed a high number of sites to ensure that a deep coverage is provided using the latest Intelligent High Speed Packet Access (I-HSPA) technology. This solution reduces the number of customers receiving service from a single site and the use of the latest technology means that the product received by NBS customers is reliable.

The NBS contract defines a standard of service and customer care and imposes a service credit regime on 3 with significant consequences in the event that quality of service and customer care is below par.

All clear now?