[143781] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Business - LTE?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Wed Aug 17 10:24:50 2011
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110817065203.GP26403@besserwisser.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 07:24:08 -0700
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Nilsson?= <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 16, 2011, at 11:52 PM, M=E5ns Nilsson wrote:
> Subject: Re: Verizon Business - LTE? Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at =
11:49:38AM -0400 Quoting chris (tknchris@gmail.com):
>> Overall, IMO the trends are just seem to be going backwards. We have =
more
>> speed but we can use it less? What kind of technology advancement is =
that?
>>=20
>> I've had "unlimited" gprs, edge, 3g, and never really seen any kind =
of
>> actual cap. Sure they were slower but I didn't have to worry about =
getting
>> surprised on my next bill. If my edge from 5+ years ago could 3gb/day =
and
>> 90gb a month how is 4G at 5gb an improvement of the service?
>=20
> In Sweden, I've seen several people in public transportation run
> Bittorrent clients on 3G. There might have been 9g a month for you
> back then, but nobody else did it. Now, every laptop has a 3G card. =
And
> they're getting used. With a sensible distribution of users over =
cells,
> the bottleneck is backhaul. Many towers started out with a couple =
bundled
> E1 circuits. Upgrading them to Ethernet over something (because =
Ethernet
> is the new black) costs a lot, apparently.
Takes a lot of E1s to support a couple hundred Mb/s of down-stream =
capacity. The capital expended on providing the facility has to include =
expanded capicty otherwise it doesn't make much sense to roll new =
technology in the first place.
> OTOH, never underestimate "Because we can".=20
>=20
> --=20
> M=E5ns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
> MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
> Hmmm ... an arrogant bouquet with a subtle suggestion of POLYVINYL
> CHLORIDE ...
