4 ms·

> Mobile connectivity plays an important role but it should be complementary, an add-on to the backbone not a substitute. Why?

aaomidi 3y ago
It’s expensive to maintain. It’s slow. It doesn’t scale. It depends heavily on weather. It can be interfered with by a bad party pretty easily.
- lucb1e 3y ago
  Expensive to maintain: dunno, but I pay <10€/month for mine, so it can't be that outrageous Slow: you can watch HD video ever since 3G came out, and 4G reduced latency a lot Doesn't scale: that's also a thing 4G apparently addressed. I've never run into capacity issues, just range issues Depends heavily on weather: never noticed it depending even slightly on weather. I've tested this in heavy rain because I indeed heard that 'straalverbindingen' have issues with this ("beam connection", "directional radio"? Not sure how to translate that word) and because microwave ovens seem to work at 2.4 GHz and water adsorbs this very well, but it appeared to make no difference whatsoever for bandwidth or latency tests on mobile data Malicious third parties interfering: never heard of this happening to an ordinary citizen, and if you're scared of your government putting up an IMSI catcher, maybe use a VPN
  - bscphil 3y ago
    > I pay <10€/month for mine > you can watch HD video I wonder... do you primarily watch HD video over this wireless connection, or are you watching it via a more traditional broadband connection? In the US, I pay ~$10 a month for wireless data (across two phones), but these phones are on WiFi 90% of the time and we never watch video on wireless. Even if you have an unusual plan that allows unlimited streaming at that price (without limiting the video bitrate), it seems like it would probably not scale to most people switching to a wireless plan without a price increase.
    - rcarr 3y ago
      Data is ridiculously overpriced in the US. In the UK, I'm currently on a 12GB plan which costs £7.99 month. But you can get completely unlimited data including tethering for £20/month or less from lots of different providers. Never heard of unlimited for less than £15 though (unless its a temporary offer).
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        “Unlimited” data is not comparable because different subscriber’s data gets assigned different priorities at times of congestion. In the US, you can get “unlimited” data for as low as $25 per month, or as high as $90 per month, depending on what level priority you want (which you assume might make a difference at peak times). And then there is a lot of bundling going on like Netflix and Disney or international. For example, I pay ATT $45 per line for 4 lines including all taxes, but they include phone calls and data for almost all of North and South America, minus the Caribbean Islands.
        rcarr 3y ago
        > “Unlimited” data is not comparable because different subscriber’s data gets assigned different priorities at times of congestion. > In the US, you can get “unlimited” data for as low as $25 per month, or as high as $90 per month, depending on what level priority you want (which you assume might make a difference at peak times). Yeah I don't think this happens in the UK/EU. The US system seems really weird and complex in comparison. Those prices I quoted above include unlimited calls and texts to anywhere in the UK.
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        “QCI” was the industry term I was looking for. Here is some unsubstantiated, but true sounding information about the US mobile networks: https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/oaophe/data_prioritization_policies_of_the_carriers_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/oaophe/data_pri... I would be surprised if UK/EU did not also have it. Surely, it exists for certain levels of politicians/government/emergency services. Seems like a short throw to then extending that implementation to capture as much revenue as you can by implementing price segmentation strategies like in the US.
  - rcarr 3y ago
    > Expensive to maintain: dunno, but I pay <10€/month for mine, so it can't be that outrageous I agree with this and all your other points. Surely it is cheaper to a put up a few mobile masts than to dig and install cables everywhere. In fact, this is the exact reason the government is using this strategy to get internet to rural locations rather than using cables.
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      Except rural electrification is a thing and putting a fiber cable on the same poles is not expensive. The reason you’re seeing that happening is because most states ban electric companies from also providing internet. I live in a rural area. My state doesn’t ban this. My internet comes from my electric company. Those “radios” you put up are far more likely to fail than glass.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    You’re paying in euros. Which means you’re probably from a small country which also partially subsidizes infrastructure cost. You’re also, in the context of the macro population, not using as much bandwidth as you would if people stopped relying on physical connections. The weather dependency depends on your distance from the tower. That’s not what I’m talking about? I’m talking about a coordinated jamming attack on cell towers in an area. Just because you haven’t heard of it doesn’t mean it’s something that the intelligence community is unaware of as a possibility. If the majority of the population only had cellular comms, the chance of this attack goes up to devastating effects.
Nextgrid 3y ago
Wireless spectrum is limited and thus should be used for stuff that can't be wired such as mobile phones. Using it for static connections that can use wires is a waste.

aaomidi 3y ago

It’s expensive to maintain. It’s slow. It doesn’t scale. It depends heavily on weather. It can be interfered with by a bad party pretty easily.

lucb1e 3y ago
Expensive to maintain: dunno, but I pay <10€/month for mine, so it can't be that outrageous Slow: you can watch HD video ever since 3G came out, and 4G reduced latency a lot Doesn't scale: that's also a thing 4G apparently addressed. I've never run into capacity issues, just range issues Depends heavily on weather: never noticed it depending even slightly on weather. I've tested this in heavy rain because I indeed heard that 'straalverbindingen' have issues with this ("beam connection", "directional radio"? Not sure how to translate that word) and because microwave ovens seem to work at 2.4 GHz and water adsorbs this very well, but it appeared to make no difference whatsoever for bandwidth or latency tests on mobile data Malicious third parties interfering: never heard of this happening to an ordinary citizen, and if you're scared of your government putting up an IMSI catcher, maybe use a VPN
- bscphil 3y ago
  > I pay <10€/month for mine > you can watch HD video I wonder... do you primarily watch HD video over this wireless connection, or are you watching it via a more traditional broadband connection? In the US, I pay ~$10 a month for wireless data (across two phones), but these phones are on WiFi 90% of the time and we never watch video on wireless. Even if you have an unusual plan that allows unlimited streaming at that price (without limiting the video bitrate), it seems like it would probably not scale to most people switching to a wireless plan without a price increase.
  - rcarr 3y ago
    Data is ridiculously overpriced in the US. In the UK, I'm currently on a 12GB plan which costs £7.99 month. But you can get completely unlimited data including tethering for £20/month or less from lots of different providers. Never heard of unlimited for less than £15 though (unless its a temporary offer).
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      “Unlimited” data is not comparable because different subscriber’s data gets assigned different priorities at times of congestion. In the US, you can get “unlimited” data for as low as $25 per month, or as high as $90 per month, depending on what level priority you want (which you assume might make a difference at peak times). And then there is a lot of bundling going on like Netflix and Disney or international. For example, I pay ATT $45 per line for 4 lines including all taxes, but they include phone calls and data for almost all of North and South America, minus the Caribbean Islands.
      - rcarr 3y ago
        > “Unlimited” data is not comparable because different subscriber’s data gets assigned different priorities at times of congestion. > In the US, you can get “unlimited” data for as low as $25 per month, or as high as $90 per month, depending on what level priority you want (which you assume might make a difference at peak times). Yeah I don't think this happens in the UK/EU. The US system seems really weird and complex in comparison. Those prices I quoted above include unlimited calls and texts to anywhere in the UK.
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        “QCI” was the industry term I was looking for. Here is some unsubstantiated, but true sounding information about the US mobile networks: https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/oaophe/data_prioritization_policies_of_the_carriers_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/oaophe/data_pri... I would be surprised if UK/EU did not also have it. Surely, it exists for certain levels of politicians/government/emergency services. Seems like a short throw to then extending that implementation to capture as much revenue as you can by implementing price segmentation strategies like in the US.
- rcarr 3y ago
  > Expensive to maintain: dunno, but I pay <10€/month for mine, so it can't be that outrageous I agree with this and all your other points. Surely it is cheaper to a put up a few mobile masts than to dig and install cables everywhere. In fact, this is the exact reason the government is using this strategy to get internet to rural locations rather than using cables.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    Except rural electrification is a thing and putting a fiber cable on the same poles is not expensive. The reason you’re seeing that happening is because most states ban electric companies from also providing internet. I live in a rural area. My state doesn’t ban this. My internet comes from my electric company. Those “radios” you put up are far more likely to fail than glass.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  You’re paying in euros. Which means you’re probably from a small country which also partially subsidizes infrastructure cost. You’re also, in the context of the macro population, not using as much bandwidth as you would if people stopped relying on physical connections. The weather dependency depends on your distance from the tower. That’s not what I’m talking about? I’m talking about a coordinated jamming attack on cell towers in an area. Just because you haven’t heard of it doesn’t mean it’s something that the intelligence community is unaware of as a possibility. If the majority of the population only had cellular comms, the chance of this attack goes up to devastating effects.

Nextgrid 3y ago

Wireless spectrum is limited and thus should be used for stuff that can't be wired such as mobile phones. Using it for static connections that can use wires is a waste.