Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Vodafone Ireland are launching their HSPA+ network :)
-
24-07-2010 11:59am#1
Comments
-
So 2.5% will have better speed and 25% to 50% better latency...
It's still a 3G mobile phone network. Not Broadband and never will be.
The higher speeds only apply when signal perfect (typically outdoors close to mast) and no-one else watching YouTube.
Brown/Purple line is iHSPA / HSPA+
Flat line is Fixed Wireless in same size channel
from http://www.techtir.ie/comms/fixed-wireless-broadband-better
It's largely Marketing with an improvement for a small number of users.0 -
It's largely Marketing with an improvement for a small number of users.
I think there was probably more than just marketing involved in providing the change to 21mb/s.
Your article was interesting I would like to see the effect of using a Nextivity repeater or if UMTS were to be used over the 900MHz band?
Also just to note that UMTS 2100 cells could have more than one 5MHz carrier per sector & sites could have more than 3 sectors, just bear that in mind. Most systems in use will also have uplink amplifiers that should also improve things.
The final thing to note is that there would be many more UMTS cells deployed per square area than a fixed wireless cell so the comparison may need to be amended to reflect the items above.
Keep it coming!0 -
The possibility of an improved service is okay in my books! I know it will only affect a small number of people, but at least it is a step in the right direction (albeit a small one
) Any idea when this will be rolled out to other masts? 0 -
rebel.ranter wrote: »I think there was probably more than just marketing involved in providing the change to 21mb/s.
Your article was interesting I would like to see the effect of using a Nextivity repeater or if UMTS were to be used over the 900MHz band?
Also just to note that UMTS 2100 cells could have more than one 5MHz carrier per sector & sites could have more than 3 sectors, just bear that in mind. Most systems in use will also have uplink amplifiers that should also improve things.
The final thing to note is that there would be many more UMTS cells deployed per square area than a fixed wireless cell so the comparison may need to be amended to reflect the items above.
Keep it coming!
Vodafone, 3, O2 and Meteor only have three x 5MHz channels each.
6 or 9 channels is recommended to reduce intercell interference.
900MHz just lets you have better in building performance and longer rural range. But more range is only much use for voice as data capacity is terrible. To have better data performance you need MORE masts closer together.
14.4, 21Mbps or even the fantasy 42Mbps (needs at least two channels/sectors and perfect signal) give very very marginal increases in capacity and speed. In fact going from a 3.6Mbps to 42Mbps system could be totally negated in user performance by a 10% increase in usage.
But having twice as many cells will double data capacity and give you higher speeds nearly twice as often.
On newer base stations these so called higher speeds are just a software change. It relies on perfect signals and almost no-one else watching video.
It's vendor hype and marketing. I call on all Mobile operators to publish independently audited peak time speeds and latency, only averaging masts that see more than 20 different users per 8 hour period. Also to publish number of failed data attempts, % of connections less than 1Mbps and number of dropped sessions/connections per month at off peak and on peak times.
Also relative profit margin per Gigabyte of voice (and how many minutes that represents), per Gigabyte of SMS (how many messages) and per Gigabyte of Data. I think we will find that in the long term the current data caps and prices are predatory compared with real ISPs who don't charge for SMS (costs Mobile operator almost nothing) and don't have expensive voice charges (Voice costs for 1hr talk about 1/100th to 1/300th of 10G data, yet both charged about the same)
Then we will see that the advertising is misleading and it should be illegal to market these products designed for Mobile Internet for fixed Broadband users or others as "Broadband".
The amount of fixed users that really want Broadband and not Mobile internet and the lack of mast density means that people that really need "on the go" Mobile Internet are seeing.
I stand by my claim that iHSPA or HSPA+ on its own has almost no effect. It is hugely noticeable if a mast with 2.048Mbps pri ISDN or similar (from voice only days) is upgraded to 50Mbps to 100Mbps IP based backhaul. That increases typical speed from < 1Mbps to >2Mbps and reduces latency from around 200ms to 120ms0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Hi Watty, you have not addressed some of the points I have made:
- As it stands at the minute with a typical 3 sector site there could be up to 9 carriers per site. Frequency has nothing to do with it, a scrambling code is the differentiator between cells, all operators use the same frequency across all cells on the network (obviously the same frequency within their allocation) with additional carriers using the next allocated frequency, eventually building up to another layer with all cells on this 2nd frequency & so on. CDMA - CODE division multiple access, the key is in the name. True it is not the most efficient use of 5MHz of spectrum but we are where we are. Comparing a site with one carrier to a fixed wireless is not a fair comparison.
- Density of sites of fixed wireless providers v Mobile Broadband providers. I don't think any of the fixed wireless providers have pockets deep enough to build a like-for-like number of sites as them. Therefore I think it is disingenuous to compare the performance of a location basing it on the fact that both technologies will follow a similar cell plan.
- You highlight that in the fixed wireless study there is use of an external antenna, why then not make a fair comparison by including some thing like a Nextivity repeater unit as part of the study to level things up a bit?
- UMTS 900 could yield additional carrier opportunities, yes 900MHz will allow greater reach but you must accept that they would also provide opportunity for additional capacity on sites already equipped with UMTS 2100 equipment
- You kind of addressed my point on sites going to 6 sectors, it's another option for capacity growth without the need for new sites
Other points to make:
- Do fixed line or fixed wireless providers ever publish peak speeds or latency figures? Why call on just mobile operators to publish these? What would it achieve only give the competition an insight?
- With respect to "cost per whatever" or "profit margin of whatever" who else publishes this & what is there to gain by publishing it? You would want to be delusional to think they are making money from the €9.99/€19.99 per month they charge for mobile internet! They are likely to be sacraficing profits to maintain market share/presence. Operator profits are published quarterly & annually & it is clear that they have been minting it for years, I think you'll see a dramatic change this year & in near future years across all markets in the world where the mobile market is saturated.
- The amount of money that mobile operators paid for their UMTS licenses means they really have no choice but to try make it work
- I have agreed with you on multiple occasions that Mobile Broadband should not be labeled true broadband principally due to the inherent problems with the technology used to deliver services, especially the effect it has on the ability to deliver low latency.
- The fact of describing the service as broadband is illegal, surely again this is a government issue? It is the state's responsibility to enforce the law?
- The lack of availability of "proper" fixed broadband services is not the fault of the mobile operators. The government is squarely to blame here:
- The method they used to sell off Eircom, they should have separated the network from the sales division to create proper competition & prevented venture capitalists from pillaging the capital from the company which ultimately prevented them from spending on their network
- The award of the NBS contract to 3, it was a kin to offer a butchering license to a vegan
- The lack of recognition that broadband is as important to infrastructure as roads, trains & buses
- Who says that masts have a backhaul of 2.048Mb?? Many have fibre or high capacity radio backhaul at this stage. I would love to see what cash strapped fixed wireless operators use. "...comin' across the nation" is an example, try find out how "across the nation" they are or what backhaul they have?
- When doing your analysis of mobile internet performance you should also consider the pool of users in question that use mobile internet versus the number of active carriers out there. Bearing in mind that in the medium term mobile operators will have plans to cell-split the busier cells if indeed the problem is related to a limitation of the HSDPA radio.
- I would disagree that it was "just a software change", I would say with a degree of certainty that while a software change may had to made, more had to be done.
- I would agree that iHSPA (a bull$hit Nokia derived non 3GPP technology) or HSPA+ will have no effect if the backhaul is not simultaneously upgraded.
- Again the lack of availability of fixed alternatives is not the fault of the mobile operators. I feel sorry for those that do not have a choice, obviously that means nobody sees a viable business opportunity to bridge this gap.
- Whatever mistrust exists between the consumer & the mobile operators I would say that it should be equally levied towards the smaller fixed wireless operators, the business case to chase after the very rural market does not stand up up for a fixed operator or a mobile operator to provide a contiguous service. Therefore in order to provide services these operators must be taking shortcuts somewhere.
Final Notes:
I don't want to be seen as defending the cause of mobile operators, I am just trying to make the point that fair comparison & balanced debate should happen. Also I don't want you to think that I am being argumentative, it's more healthy debate that is my intent.
0 -
-
rebel.ranter wrote: »Hi Watty, you have not addressed some of the points I have made:
- As it stands at the minute with a typical 3 sector site there could be up to 9 carriers per site. Frequency has nothing to do with it, a scrambling code is the differentiator between cells, all operators use the same frequency across all cells on the network (obviously the same frequency within their allocation) with additional carriers using the next allocated frequency, eventually building up to another layer with all cells on this 2nd frequency & so on. CDMA - CODE division multiple access, the key is in the name. True it is not the most efficient use of 5MHz of spectrum but we are where we are. Comparing a site with one carrier to a fixed wireless is not a fair comparison.
- Density of sites of fixed wireless providers v Mobile Broadband providers. I don't think any of the fixed wireless providers have pockets deep enough to build a like-for-like number of sites as them. Therefore I think it is disingenuous to compare the performance of a location basing it on the fact that both technologies will follow a similar cell plan.
- You highlight that in the fixed wireless study there is use of an external antenna, why then not make a fair comparison by including some thing like a Nextivity repeater unit as part of the study to level things up a bit?
- UMTS 900 could yield additional carrier opportunities, yes 900MHz will allow greater reach but you must accept that they would also provide opportunity for additional capacity on sites already equipped with UMTS 2100 equipment
- You kind of addressed my point on sites going to 6 sectors, it's another option for capacity growth without the need for new sites
Other points to make:
- Do fixed line or fixed wireless providers ever publish peak speeds or latency figures? Why call on just mobile operators to publish these? What would it achieve only give the competition an insight?
- With respect to "cost per whatever" or "profit margin of whatever" who else publishes this & what is there to gain by publishing it? You would want to be delusional to think they are making money from the €9.99/€19.99 per month they charge for mobile internet! They are likely to be sacraficing profits to maintain market share/presence. Operator profits are published quarterly & annually & it is clear that they have been minting it for years, I think you'll see a dramatic change this year & in near future years across all markets in the world where the mobile market is saturated.
- The amount of money that mobile operators paid for their UMTS licenses means they really have no choice but to try make it work
- I have agreed with you on multiple occasions that Mobile Broadband should not be labeled true broadband principally due to the inherent problems with the technology used to deliver services, especially the effect it has on the ability to deliver low latency.
- The fact of describing the service as broadband is illegal, surely again this is a government issue? It is the state's responsibility to enforce the law?
- The lack of availability of "proper" fixed broadband services is not the fault of the mobile operators. The government is squarely to blame here:
- The method they used to sell off Eircom, they should have separated the network from the sales division to create proper competition & prevented venture capitalists from pillaging the capital from the company which ultimately prevented them from spending on their network
- The award of the NBS contract to 3, it was a kin to offer a butchering license to a vegan
- The lack of recognition that broadband is as important to infrastructure as roads, trains & buses
- Who says that masts have a backhaul of 2.048Mb?? Many have fibre or high capacity radio backhaul at this stage. I would love to see what cash strapped fixed wireless operators use. "...comin' across the nation" is an example, try find out how "across the nation" they are or what backhaul they have?
- When doing your analysis of mobile internet performance you should also consider the pool of users in question that use mobile internet versus the number of active carriers out there. Bearing in mind that in the medium term mobile operators will have plans to cell-split the busier cells if indeed the problem is related to a limitation of the HSDPA radio.
- I would disagree that it was "just a software change", I would say with a degree of certainty that while a software change may had to made, more had to be done.
- I would agree that iHSPA (a bull$hit Nokia derived non 3GPP technology) or HSPA+ will have no effect if the backhaul is not simultaneously upgraded.
- Again the lack of availability of fixed alternatives is not the fault of the mobile operators. I feel sorry for those that do not have a choice, obviously that means nobody sees a viable business opportunity to bridge this gap.
- Whatever mistrust exists between the consumer & the mobile operators I would say that it should be equally levied towards the smaller fixed wireless operators, the business case to chase after the very rural market does not stand up up for a fixed operator or a mobile operator to provide a contiguous service. Therefore in order to provide services these operators must be taking shortcuts somewhere.
Final Notes:
I don't want to be seen as defending the cause of mobile operators, I am just trying to make the point that fair comparison & balanced debate should happen. Also I don't want you to think that I am being argumentative, it's more healthy debate that is my intent.
All I can say is..... WOW what a long post
I think HSPA+ is the first step to getting LTE. Many people just moan that LTE is just better mobile broadband well thats the point, its better mobile broadband. Even though mobile broadband is still quite unreliable I think when LTE comes things will smooth out a little bit. and I still think mobile boradband ( at least in my area) is a much better alternative to Eircom not UPC though. I have that and its fantastic. Never more then 25ms latency and never less then 18mbs speed. I pay for 20mbs 0 -
Can I ask a simple question lads.... will increasing the speed to 21mbs help in any way with congestion?
The short answer is: It might.
If there was a congestion problem related to a backhaul issue then a by-product of the 21mbs implementation might be a backhaul capacity upgrade. In that instance then yes you will see a benefit.0 -
LTE and HSPA+ are completely unrelated.
HSPA+ on 3G has no relevence to LTE which is 100% incompatible to phones and Modems, uses a different frequency and needs a new licence.
No.Can I ask a simple question lads.... will increasing the speed to 21mbs help in any way with congestion?
Only if existing masts have old 2Mbps backhaul for voice only and are replaced with 100Mbps IP based backhaul will you see improvement.
But the improvement doing that is almost the same as not changing HSDPA to HSPA+.
HSPA+ improves latency, but still rubbish compared to Broadband
HSPA+ implements HSUPA, which plain HSDPA doesn't have. This increases upload speed from abysmal to nearly OK, but only if cell is not very busy.
There are advantages to HSPA+, but "up to 21Mbps is irrelevent.
We should have the truth and no more Marketing illusions.
I call on all Mobile operators to publish independently audited peak time speeds and latency, only averaging masts that see more than 20 different users per 8 hour period. Also to publish number of failed data attempts, % of connections less than 1Mbps and number of dropped sessions/connections per month at off peak and on peak times.0 -
Advertisement
-
Spooky1666 wrote: »All I can say is..... WOW what a long post
I think HSPA+ is the first step to getting LTE. Many people just moan that LTE is just better mobile broadband well thats the point, its better mobile broadband. Even though mobile broadband is still quite unreliable I think when LTE comes things will smooth out a little bit. and I still think mobile boradband ( at least in my area) is a much better alternative to Eircom not UPC though. I have that and its fantastic. Never more then 25ms latency and never less then 18mbs speed. I pay for 20mbs
You are right it is a first step, but LTE is new equipment & new antennas & end user devices. The frequency at which LTE is to operate at is not even decided yet, equipment vendors hope it is going to be 1800Mhz (higher frequency means higher equipment sales). Operators hope it will be 700 or 800 MHz.
LTE should bring much lower latency & the usage pattern of mobile internet users will be better understood by the time LTE comes so operators may be in a better position to determine where to introduce LTE. Then it might become a viable alternative.
Mobile broadband as it is now is great for mobility & a back up solution, fibre to the home is what you want!
I think its (HSPA+ Mobile BB, not LTE) real purpose though is/will be to support smart phone activity, after all apart from on the train/bus who really uses their laptop on the move?0 -
Nonsense. They only have 3 channels. Check Comreg. The licences are there.rebel.ranter wrote: »- As it stands at the minute with a typical 3 sector site there could be up to 9 carriers per site.
There are 15 codes, don't confuse the two. You can't break laws of physics
21Mbps uses higher QAM. It thus needs more perfect signal (shannon). 42Mbps uses all 15 codes from 2 carriers/channel and highest QAM.
If you have more than one person you have less codes.
Every time you double distance from mast, you have 1/4 signal. Have to drop speed.
Moving indoors is 1/2 to 1/100th signal.
Unless the cell is totally isolated you need very careful planning to avoid interference, read up on why even with 3 sectors, that 3 carriers is minimum and that 9 is recommended.
You could have a network with ONE channel and 3 sector masts/cells. Then use 5 codes per sector.
Then your max speed is 1/3rd.
Your performance is terrible as traffic on the two neighbouring sector causes sector breathing as well as traffic on the sector. With N=3 only traffic actually on the sector makes it breathe, though depending on cell density and landscape, the same channel on the cell beyond the neighbour cell (or reflections) can make it breathe. Your capacity would be less than 1/3rd per sector, maybe 1/6th.
I've seen a single channel CDMA based Mobile Internet system. It was rubbish.
900MHz would be much better utilized for LTE alongside part of 800MHz. Intercell interference is much worse at 900MHz. If the backward obsolete W-CDMA was deployed on 900MHz instead of GSM, then at least there should only be one RAN operator. It's a stupid idea to put 3G on 900MHz.
iHSPA and HSPA+ is polishing the dried stuff you find in Rural Ireland. It might as well be done as it costs little (or makes Nokia & Ericsson a big profit if they charging much) and helps a little. But 14, 21 or 42Mbps is hype.
You totally miss the point. Fixed wireless has two advantages:rebel.ranter wrote: »- Density of sites of fixed wireless providers v Mobile Broadband providers. I don't think any of the fixed wireless providers have pockets deep enough to build a like-for-like number of sites as them. Therefore I think it is disingenuous to compare the performance of a location basing it on the fact that both technologies will follow a similar cell plan.
- You highlight that in the fixed wireless study there is use of an external antenna, why then not make a fair comparison by including some thing like a Nextivity repeater unit as part of the study to level things up a bit?
1) The operators are not limited to 5MHz per sector
2) The sector at 5MHz has x16 capacity thus a 28MHz Fixed Wireless sector has FIFTY times the capacity of Mobile
3) Fixed Wireless is a dedicated Broadband system. Mobile is MEANT to be mobile and the planning is primarily based on voice calls, not data.
4) Nextivity is irrelevant or indeed makes it worse. Adding some external aerials to a Mobile network doesn't help. 3G Repeaters degrade other cells SNR. A router plus external aerial is far better.
Irrelevant. More than 3 sectors physically is nearly impossible. Four is about the limit. We should have had ONE infrastructure operator with all 12 channels and then been able to do 3 sector N=12 dense cells and also 3 sector cells in less dense areas with N=3 planning or N= 6 planning and then 4 channels or 2 channels per sector.rebel.ranter wrote: »- UMTS 900 could yield additional carrier opportunities, yes 900MHz will allow greater reach but you must accept that they would also provide opportunity for additional capacity on sites already equipped with UMTS 2100 equipment
- You kind of addressed my point on sites going to 6 sectors, it's another option for capacity growth without the need for new sitesrebel.ranter wrote: »Other points to make:
- Do fixed line or fixed wireless providers ever publish peak speeds or latency figures? Why call on just mobile operators to publish these? What would it achieve only give the competition an insight?
The fixed Wireless, Cable, Fibre and DSL should publish these as well. In fact Comreg said they would do it and haven't
I know the figures for some of the Fixed Wireless (they vary due to operator practice and technology), DSL, Cable and Fibre.
Eircom and UPC both have some areas with congestion / contention issues due to historic lack of backhaul. This isn't inherent and both are upgrading. Some Mobile operators this has been much worse with backhaul only designed for GSM/EDGE/3G upto 350K, not upto 3.6, 7.2, 14 or 21Mbps per sector.
On a level playing field Mobile will be exposed as totally inferior to real Broadband.
It was a scandalrebel.ranter wrote: »- With respect to "cost per whatever" or "profit margin of whatever" who else publishes this & what is there to gain by publishing it? You would want to be delusional to think they are making money from the €9.99/€19.99 per month they charge for mobile internet! They are likely to be sacraficing profits to maintain market share/presence. Operator profits are published quarterly & annually & it is clear that they have been minting it for years, I think you'll see a dramatic change this year & in near future years across all markets in the world where the mobile market is saturated.
- The amount of money that mobile operators paid for their UMTS licenses means they really have no choice but to try make it work
a) The greed of governments
b) the stupidity of Operators to bid. The thought that people would pay more for extra services such as Video was fantasy.
You totally misunderstand my point. I think on a level playing field that Mobile Data packages should be about €50 to €70 a month for 1G or 2G Cap. Either that or they are making 100x profit on voice calls than they should. Voice sales are unfairly subsidising data sales.
http://irelandoffline.org/2009/08/is-mobile-midband-in-ireland-destroying-broadband-infrastructure/
Absolutely. It's terrible that they have a vested interest in pretending that Mobile is Broadband.rebel.ranter wrote: »- The fact of describing the service as broadband is illegal, surely again this is a government issue? It is the state's responsibility to enforce the law?
- The lack of availability of "proper" fixed broadband services is not the fault of the mobile operators.
They don't need to compound the problem by mis-representing their product.
If you need Internet away from Office/Home, on the Go, Mobile is the only and best solution. "Real" mobile users could be seeing up to x5 reduction in performance due to deliberate mis-selling of Mobile as Broadband for Fixed users.
You sound like a Marketing rep for Nokia or Ericsson. Or PR for the Operators. You obviously know a little, but "a little knowledge is dangerous"0 -
RR is correct in saying that LTE ( at the right frequency) could have a big effect.
Pansying around with 5mhz channels as Comreg initially proposes will not have a big effect. It will result in another anorexic speed bump and that will be grossly oversold by the marketing fuks as ever.
In rural areas networks sharing ( RAN sharing that is ) will have to be implemented and a lot of the right spectrum will have to be released onto shared RANs and in damn large blocks too. Think 50mhz not 5mhz.
Think of the biggest single advantage, the network marketing fuks will not have to lie outrageously for the first time ever 0 -
-
The Government needs to stop claiming they are doing something when in fact they are makling the situation worse. They need to help roll out universal Broadband.
eircom line rental sadly doesn't fund Network, it's been funding debt created by asset strippers and leveraged buyouts to the point of being the most expensive line rental in World for one of poorest networks in Europe.
It's been under invested in Network. In fact all the owners since privatasion have not been "Investors" but asset and revenue strippers, gradually increasing eircom debt (inculding pension, bonds, NIK etc) to almost €5 Billion with a tiny fraction invested.
€1.5 Billion to €2 Billion would give Universal Broadband with most of it fibre and only a few rural as low as 8Mbps.
Of course Buisiness isn't fair. Caveat Emptor. That is why we need a better ASAI, Consumer Agency and Regulator.
ASAI, Comreg and Consumer Agency in Ireland
But which is which?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Didn't the Sandwich shop go into receivership
iHSPA/HSPA+ has no difference in coverage from basic 3G (cell edge is unchanged, only very very small area of centre sees increased speed, and since it's CDMA based suffers from severe cell/sector breathing). LTE has no downlink cell breathing as it's OFDM based like DAB, DTT, Flash-OFDMA and WiMax.
Any significant user speed changes are from new masts or "fixed" backhaul
Percent of users seeing a particular speed, with only ONE user connected, based on distance from Mast
Unless a user's speed is 3.6Mbps (or more on 7.2Mbps Mast) with basic HSDPA, they won't see more speed with a 21Mbps HSPA+ or iHSPA mast.
It's physics.0 -
-
HSPA+ and iHSPA drops calls just as often as the voice call part is no different.
It's no more like Broadband than any other 3G system.
So it doesn't matter if it's only in Dublin. Most likely more wide spread as it's only a software update on newer Basestations (often Rural as they do the cities first) and any new Bases likely have it as standard.
Feel good. You are not going to be worse of than other Mobile users SARASON 0 -
All I was saying is if Tallow in Waterford experiences high demand the operator knows that Tallow should be dealt with as a priority for LTE deployment. That's the type of learning I mean.
Also the implementation of the additional features would generally not happen in isolation, i.e. The backhaul would also be upgraded, so while the feature itself might not be the benefit there would be a coincidental benefit.
I would really like to see WiMax take off but it doesn't seem to be making inroads at all. That is what I cannot understand, if there is a gap in the market then surely the right solution should naturally fill it.
I thought you'd pick up on the liquidation! Like I said to you before mobile revenue is in sharp decline so the same fate could be on the cards for lots of operators! 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement