4 ms·

Few people have phone landlines anymore in India, but wired broadband to the home is not uncommon. It would be annoying to not then be able to have a home WiF

Few people have phone landlines anymore in India, but wired broadband to the home is not uncommon. It would be annoying to not then be able to have a home WiFi 6G router. Mobile data is cheap, but broadband is much cheaper.

matt-p 11mo ago
Given we know 5Ghz can give us like 600Mbps real world on 80Mhz channels, would a fixed line in India typically be above that speed? Is it all GPON these days or still DSL/WISP type stuff?
- gopalv 11mo ago
  > would a fixed line in India typically be above that speed? My family lives outside of a tier 2 city border, in what used to be farmland in the 90s. They have Asianet FTTH at 1Gbps, but most of the video/streaming traffic ends at the CDN hosts in the same city. That CDN push to the edge is why Hotstar is faster to load there - the latency on seeks isn't going around the planet.
  - matt-p 11mo ago
    That is really cool, but sad to see it's only at around 15% penetration.
- esseph 11mo ago
  WISP can do 1Gbps in 6GHz now, reliably, with Tarana. The technology is staggering.
  - matt-p 11mo ago
    I'm aware, but, um, without sounding insensitive, not for $50 per sub in hardware cost. Tarana is about 10X that. If you have that kind of money labour is cheap enough to run fibre for the same amount.
    - esseph 11mo ago
      The only way that starts to make any sense is if you're doing 128way-256way gpon splits which is not something most are willing to do if they need to make any kind of profit and sell anything more than 100Mbps packages. I wasn't even willing to do 64w splits over 10 years ago now and in hindsight that was wise. You could go active but then your SFP/SFP+ per port cost eats you up. For less than 1mil fixed wireless is going to cover 2,800km/sq. You are not going to to get anywhere near that cost trying to do the same thing to 2048(or more) subs in that footprint with fiber. That wouldn't even cover your fiber material cost!
TitaRusell 11mo ago
Mobile doesn't scale for densely populated mega cities. The signal also doesn't penetrate glass and concrete very well.
- toomuchtodo 11mo ago
  5-6Ghz, certainly, lower frequencies do though. This is why T-mobile offers home broadband using their 5G network (which can support up to 1M devices per square km) in the US; they overbuilt, and have many smaller cells with lots of capacity and are undersubscribed, and monetize the remaining capacity using lowest priority fixed broadband. One could see India deploying the same density compatible infrastructure in the usual "leapfrog" model of skipping lesser technology implementations in this space.
- matt-p 11mo ago
  "Mobile doesn't scale in cities" is the exact reason they need 6Ghz (because higher frequencies enable much higher density of cells, reducing terminals per cell). 6Ghz will penetrate buildings terribly, I agree, but it's honestly just not that simple, for example it's now becoming really common for carriers to be doing in building deployments; shopping centres, sports stadiums, the transit network (e.g 4g in the subway) hospitals, the list goes on. Secondly by lifting terminals off of say 800Mhz or 1.8Ghz band and into 6Ghz outside where you can, you free up capacity on those lower frequency bands that do penetrate buildings or reach weird areas like the middle of a park that has tree cover (or whatever).
  - esseph 11mo ago
    You could do gigabit fixed wireless for less than 1/10 the cost of LTE, and have better performance. LTE is what somebody would do without much telecom experience and more money than sense.
    - msh 11mo ago
      LTE is what the telecom people wanted. The rest (slightly exaggerated) wanted wimax.

matt-p 11mo ago

Given we know 5Ghz can give us like 600Mbps real world on 80Mhz channels, would a fixed line in India typically be above that speed? Is it all GPON these days or still DSL/WISP type stuff?

gopalv 11mo ago
> would a fixed line in India typically be above that speed? My family lives outside of a tier 2 city border, in what used to be farmland in the 90s. They have Asianet FTTH at 1Gbps, but most of the video/streaming traffic ends at the CDN hosts in the same city. That CDN push to the edge is why Hotstar is faster to load there - the latency on seeks isn't going around the planet.
- matt-p 11mo ago
  That is really cool, but sad to see it's only at around 15% penetration.
esseph 11mo ago
WISP can do 1Gbps in 6GHz now, reliably, with Tarana. The technology is staggering.
- matt-p 11mo ago
  I'm aware, but, um, without sounding insensitive, not for $50 per sub in hardware cost. Tarana is about 10X that. If you have that kind of money labour is cheap enough to run fibre for the same amount.
  - esseph 11mo ago
    The only way that starts to make any sense is if you're doing 128way-256way gpon splits which is not something most are willing to do if they need to make any kind of profit and sell anything more than 100Mbps packages. I wasn't even willing to do 64w splits over 10 years ago now and in hindsight that was wise. You could go active but then your SFP/SFP+ per port cost eats you up. For less than 1mil fixed wireless is going to cover 2,800km/sq. You are not going to to get anywhere near that cost trying to do the same thing to 2048(or more) subs in that footprint with fiber. That wouldn't even cover your fiber material cost!

TitaRusell 11mo ago

Mobile doesn't scale for densely populated mega cities. The signal also doesn't penetrate glass and concrete very well.

toomuchtodo 11mo ago
5-6Ghz, certainly, lower frequencies do though. This is why T-mobile offers home broadband using their 5G network (which can support up to 1M devices per square km) in the US; they overbuilt, and have many smaller cells with lots of capacity and are undersubscribed, and monetize the remaining capacity using lowest priority fixed broadband. One could see India deploying the same density compatible infrastructure in the usual "leapfrog" model of skipping lesser technology implementations in this space.
matt-p 11mo ago
"Mobile doesn't scale in cities" is the exact reason they need 6Ghz (because higher frequencies enable much higher density of cells, reducing terminals per cell). 6Ghz will penetrate buildings terribly, I agree, but it's honestly just not that simple, for example it's now becoming really common for carriers to be doing in building deployments; shopping centres, sports stadiums, the transit network (e.g 4g in the subway) hospitals, the list goes on. Secondly by lifting terminals off of say 800Mhz or 1.8Ghz band and into 6Ghz outside where you can, you free up capacity on those lower frequency bands that do penetrate buildings or reach weird areas like the middle of a park that has tree cover (or whatever).
- esseph 11mo ago
  You could do gigabit fixed wireless for less than 1/10 the cost of LTE, and have better performance. LTE is what somebody would do without much telecom experience and more money than sense.
  - msh 11mo ago
    LTE is what the telecom people wanted. The rest (slightly exaggerated) wanted wimax.