3 ms·

Real world speeds will undoubtedly differ, as the article describes, but it's at least an improvement over no data or the 'peak' data speeds that operators like

Real world speeds will undoubtedly differ, as the article describes, but it's at least an improvement over no data or the 'peak' data speeds that operators like to quote that bear no relation to the actual speeds consumers experience.

Nrsolis 14y ago
Just an FYI: The primary challenge to the mobile operators is backhaul from the base stations, not spectrum. At any given tower/site, you've only got a certain amount of fixed facilities from the local wireline carrier that are available. In other cases, you're using point-to-point microwave links to backhaul until you can offload that traffic to a fiber-connected location. In either situation, you need to think about the entire picture before you go ahead and focus on "spectrum" as the reason why your link speed differs from what you expect. There are many moving parts and they all can cause congestion. And the AT&T/T-Mobile merger was nixed because they tried to pull a fast one on the FCC/DOJ by claiming that they needed the spectrum/infrastructure to upgrade their network. When a document surfaced that showed that their cost to upgrade their existing network was a fraction of what they were paying for the T-Mobile network, it became clear that they were buying them to eliminate price competition.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I assume you were replying to me. Where the bottleneck is depends on market being served. In dense urban areas (i.e. the ones that matter), the bottlenecks is often spectrum. See: http://gizmodo.com/5847811/giz-explains-whats-wireless-spectrum-and-why-you-care-about-it-more-than-you-think http://gizmodo.com/5847811/giz-explains-whats-wireless-spect..., http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/01/25/verizon-sells-att-lower-700mhz-b-block-to-att-for-1-9-billion-and-some-aws-spectrum-heres-what-that-means http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/01/25/verizon-sells-att-lo.... This is both because the density of users in urban areas, and the fact that it's easier to provision urban cell cites with fiber.
  - Nrsolis 14y ago
    Sorry. Wrong again. When a cell reaches capacity, you subdivide the cell. e.g. You turn a single 3-sector cell into three smaller cells. Each cell operates in either a different frequency range or in the case of OFDMA (LTE) via a remapping of the timeslots and a lower upper power range. Exactly the same way that you can re-use the 2.4Ghz band for WiFi a bazillion times over. So the challenge isn't the available spectrum; it's the available dollars to install base-stations and do backhaul. QED.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      That doesn't mean that availability of spectrum isn't a challenge, it just means it's a challenge that can be overcome by throwing money at the problem. You're taking about a complex multi-factor optimization problem. The fact that you can address a challenge, vis-a-vis a competitor, along one axis of the design space by moving along a different axis of the design space does not mean that there is no challenge. If one competitor has more spectrum than another, it can support similar numbers of users at similar densities at lower capital costs. Alternatively, it can offer users higher speeds and higher capacity for similar capital investment. See: http://gigaom.com/2012/05/14/atts-chicago-problem-why-lte-slows-down-in-the-windy-city/ http://gigaom.com/2012/05/14/atts-chicago-problem-why-lte-sl... In other words, if AT&T and Verizon both have $1 billion to build cell sites/backhaul in Chicago, and Verizon has 20 MHz of spectrum and AT&T only has 10 MHz, then Verizon can support more users at higher speed and its service will be perceived as much better. Alternatively, it can spend less than $1 billion on capital costs and offer the same service level as AT&T at a lower price while maintaining similar profits. Also, making cell sites smaller is not a magic bullet. It's just one axis along the design space. Inter-cell interference is not a trivial problem, and having more spectrum can allow you to go to a point in the network design space where you have to worry less about that problem.
      - Nrsolis 14y ago
        Except that more spectrum isn't free and is a finite resource. It isn't fair to dismiss one carrier as not being viable (which is what I took from your original post) if they can compete along a different axis more efficiently when compared to another carrier. Don't forget that over time, technology advancement tends to favor later entrants to the market versus early ones. It's entirely possible that T-mobile can operate an LTE network with triple the base-station density of AT&T because they waited until the equipment was at a cost that would make the deployment cost-efficient.

Nrsolis 14y ago

Just an FYI: The primary challenge to the mobile operators is backhaul from the base stations, not spectrum. At any given tower/site, you've only got a certain amount of fixed facilities from the local wireline carrier that are available. In other cases, you're using point-to-point microwave links to backhaul until you can offload that traffic to a fiber-connected location. In either situation, you need to think about the entire picture before you go ahead and focus on "spectrum" as the reason why your link speed differs from what you expect. There are many moving parts and they all can cause congestion. And the AT&T/T-Mobile merger was nixed because they tried to pull a fast one on the FCC/DOJ by claiming that they needed the spectrum/infrastructure to upgrade their network. When a document surfaced that showed that their cost to upgrade their existing network was a fraction of what they were paying for the T-Mobile network, it became clear that they were buying them to eliminate price competition.

rayiner 14y ago
I assume you were replying to me. Where the bottleneck is depends on market being served. In dense urban areas (i.e. the ones that matter), the bottlenecks is often spectrum. See: http://gizmodo.com/5847811/giz-explains-whats-wireless-spectrum-and-why-you-care-about-it-more-than-you-think http://gizmodo.com/5847811/giz-explains-whats-wireless-spect..., http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/01/25/verizon-sells-att-lower-700mhz-b-block-to-att-for-1-9-billion-and-some-aws-spectrum-heres-what-that-means http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/01/25/verizon-sells-att-lo.... This is both because the density of users in urban areas, and the fact that it's easier to provision urban cell cites with fiber.
- Nrsolis 14y ago
  Sorry. Wrong again. When a cell reaches capacity, you subdivide the cell. e.g. You turn a single 3-sector cell into three smaller cells. Each cell operates in either a different frequency range or in the case of OFDMA (LTE) via a remapping of the timeslots and a lower upper power range. Exactly the same way that you can re-use the 2.4Ghz band for WiFi a bazillion times over. So the challenge isn't the available spectrum; it's the available dollars to install base-stations and do backhaul. QED.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    That doesn't mean that availability of spectrum isn't a challenge, it just means it's a challenge that can be overcome by throwing money at the problem. You're taking about a complex multi-factor optimization problem. The fact that you can address a challenge, vis-a-vis a competitor, along one axis of the design space by moving along a different axis of the design space does not mean that there is no challenge. If one competitor has more spectrum than another, it can support similar numbers of users at similar densities at lower capital costs. Alternatively, it can offer users higher speeds and higher capacity for similar capital investment. See: http://gigaom.com/2012/05/14/atts-chicago-problem-why-lte-slows-down-in-the-windy-city/ http://gigaom.com/2012/05/14/atts-chicago-problem-why-lte-sl... In other words, if AT&T and Verizon both have $1 billion to build cell sites/backhaul in Chicago, and Verizon has 20 MHz of spectrum and AT&T only has 10 MHz, then Verizon can support more users at higher speed and its service will be perceived as much better. Alternatively, it can spend less than $1 billion on capital costs and offer the same service level as AT&T at a lower price while maintaining similar profits. Also, making cell sites smaller is not a magic bullet. It's just one axis along the design space. Inter-cell interference is not a trivial problem, and having more spectrum can allow you to go to a point in the network design space where you have to worry less about that problem.
    - Nrsolis 14y ago
      Except that more spectrum isn't free and is a finite resource. It isn't fair to dismiss one carrier as not being viable (which is what I took from your original post) if they can compete along a different axis more efficiently when compared to another carrier. Don't forget that over time, technology advancement tends to favor later entrants to the market versus early ones. It's entirely possible that T-mobile can operate an LTE network with triple the base-station density of AT&T because they waited until the equipment was at a cost that would make the deployment cost-efficient.