[123065] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Senie)
Fri Feb 26 19:21:30 2010
From: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5758A9A39DAB64083FB10DC2A6BFC7F48230347@IAMAILCLUSTER1.corp.paetec.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:20:35 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hopefully someone will bother to cover the rural areas with cell service =
eventually.
Much of western Massachusetts (by which I mean the Berkshires, more than =
I mean the Pioneer Valley) is not covered by cell service. Where there =
is cell service, most cell sites have only minimal data speeds. Vermont =
is far worse, as is much of Maine. If there were 3G cellular, it'd be a =
big step up. But I expect the inner cities will all be running LTE for =
years before more rural areas even get voice service.
On Feb 26, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Haney, Wilson wrote:
> As we all know it's expensive building out any landline network. Rural =
areas just get over looked.=20
>=20
> Check out this tech coming out of Motorola and to a Verizon/ATT tower =
near you soon.
>=20
> 100 Mbps possible off cellular signals. Looks like they will throttle =
it to 20 Mbps and less though.=20
>=20
> http://business.motorola.com/experiencelte/lte-depth.html
>=20
> =
http://news.techworld.com/networking/3203498/motorola-predicts-20mbps-down=
load-speed-with-future-lte-networks/
>=20
> WPH
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Crooks, Sam [mailto:Sam.Crooks@experian.com]=20
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 4:51 PM
> To: Michael Sokolov; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg)
>=20
> I had good luck getting my dad some form of broadband access in rural
> Oregon using a 3g router (Cradlepoint), a Wilson Electronics signal =
amp
> (model 811211), and an outdoor mount high gain antenna. It's not =
great,
> but considering the alternatives (33.6k dialup for $60/mo or satellite
> broadband for $150-$200/mo) it wasn't a bad deal for my dad when you
> consider that the dialup ISP + dedicated POTS line cost about as much =
as
> the 5GB 3G data plan does. =20
>=20
> Speed is somewhere between dialup and Uverse or FIOS. I get the =
sense
> that it is somewhere in the range of 256 - 512 kbps with high latency
> (Dad's not one for much in the way of network performance testing).
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG]
>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:35 PM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg)
>>=20
>> Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> Better than western Massachusetts, where there's just no
> connectivity
>> at =3D
>>> all. Even dialup fails to function over crappy lines.
>>=20
>> Hmm. Although I've never been to Western MA and hence have no idea
>> what
>> the telecom situation is like over there, I'm certainly aware of =
quite
>> a
>> few places in "first world USA" where DSL is still a fantasy, let
> alone
>> fiber.
>>=20
>> As a local example, I have a friend in a rural area of Southern
>> California who can't get any kind of "high-speed Internet". I've run
> a
>> prequal on her address and it tells me she is 31 kft from the CO. =
The
>> CO in question has a Covad DSLAM in it, but at 31 kft those rural
>> residents' options are limited to either IDSL at 144 kbps (not much
>> point in that) or a T1 starting at ~$700/month. The latter figure is
>> typically well out of range for the kind of people who live in such
>> places.
>>=20
>> That got me thinking: ISDN/IDSL and T1 can be extended infinitely far
>> into the boondocks because those signal formats support repeaters.
>> What
>> I'm wondering is how can we do the same thing with SDSL - and I mean
>> politically rather than technically. The technical part is easy: =
some
>> COs already have CLECs in them that serve G.shdsl (I've been told =
that
>> NEN does that) and for G.shdsl repeaters are part of the standard
>> (searching around shows a few vendors making them); in the case of
>> SDSL/2B1Q (Covad and DSL.net) there is no official support for
>> repeaters
>> and hence no major vendors making such, but I can build such a
> repeater
>> unofficially.
>>=20
>> The difficulty is with the political part, and that's where I'm
> seeking
>> the wisdom of this list. How would one go about sticking a mid-span
>> repeater into an ILEC-owned 31 kft rural loop? =46rom what I =
understand
>> (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!), when a CLEC orders a loop
>> from an ILEC, if it's for a T1 or IDSL, the CLEC actually orders a T1
>> or
>> ISDN BRI transport from the ILEC rather than a dry pair, and any
>> mid-span repeaters or HDSLx converters or the like become the
>> responsibility of the ILEC rather than the CLEC, right?
>>=20
>> So how could one extend this model to provide, say, repeatered =
G.shdsl
>> service to far-outlying rural subscribers? Is there some political
>> process (PUC/FCC/etc) by which an ILEC could be forced to allow a
> third
>> party to stick a repeater in the middle of their loop? Or would it
>> have
>> to work by way of the ILEC providing a G.shdsl transport service to
>> CLECs, with the ILEC being responsible for the selection, procurement
>> and deployment of repeater hardware? And what if the ILEC is not
>> interested in providing such a service - any PUC/FCC/etc political
>> process via which they could be forced to cooperate?
>>=20
>> Things get even more complicated in those locations where the CO has =
a
>> Covad DSLAM in it serving out SDSL/2B1Q, but no other CLEC serving
>> G.shdsl. Even if the ILEC were to provide a G.shdsl transport =
service
>> with repeaters, it wouldn't help with SDSL/2B1Q. My idea involves
>> building a gadget in the form factor of a standard mid-span repeater
>> that would function as a converter from SDSL/2B1Q to G.shdsl: if the
>> loop calls for one mid-span repeater, stick this gadget in as if it
>> were that repeater; if the loop calls for 2 or more repeaters, use my
>> gadget as the first "repeater" and then standard G.shdsl repeaters
>> after it. But of course this idea is totally dependent on the =
ability
>> of a third party to stick these devices in the middle of long rural
>> loops, perhaps in the place of loading coils which are likely present
>> on such loops.
>>=20
>> Any ideas?
>>=20
>> MS
>=20
>=20
>=20
