This is a pretty neat box: https://mikrotik.com/product/netpower_lite_7r What are the compelling arguments for fiber vs copper, again? On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:10 AM Mike Puchol via Rpm < rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > Hi Bob, > > You hit on a set of very valid points, which I'll complement with my views > on where the industry (the bit of it that affects WISPs) is heading, and > what I saw at the MWC in Barcelona. Love the FiWi term :-) > > I have seen the vendors that supply WISPs, such as Ubiquiti, Cambium, and > Mimosa, but also newer entrants such as Tarana, increase the performance > and on-paper specs of their equipment. My examples below are centered on > the African market, if you operate in Europe or the US, where you can > charge customers a higher install fee, or even charge them a break-up fee > if they don't return equipment, the economics work. > > Where currently a ~$500 sector radio could serve ~60 endpoints, at a cost > of ~$50 per endpoint (I use this term in place of ODU/CPE, the antenna that > you mount on the roof), and supply ~2.5 Mbps CIR per endpoint, the > evolution is now a ~$2,000+ sector radio, a $200 endpoint, capability for > ~150 endpoints per sector, and ~25 Mbps CIR per endpoint. > > If every customer a WISP installs represents, say, $100 CAPEX at install > time ($50 for the antenna + cabling, router, etc), and you charge a $30 > install fee, you have $70 to recover, and you recover from the monthly > contribution the customer makes. If the contribution after OPEX is, say, > $10, it takes you 7 months to recover the full install cost. Not bad, > doable even in low-income markets. > > Fast-forward to the next-generation version. Now, the CAPEX at install is > $250, you need to recover $220, and it will take you 22 months, which is > above the usual 18 months that investors look for. > > The focus, thereby, has to be the lever that has the largest effect on the > unit economics - which is the per-customer cost. I have drawn what my ideal > FiWi network would look like: > > > > Taking you through this - we start with a 1-port, low-cost EPON OLT (or > you could go for 2, 4, 8 ports as you add capacity). This OLT has capacity > for 64 ONUs on its single port. Instead of connecting the typical fiber > infrastructure with kilometers of cables which break, require maintenance, > etc. we insert an EPON to Ethernet converter (I added "magic" because these > don't exist AFAIK). > > This converter allows us to connect our $2k sector radio, and serve the > $200 endpoints (ODUs) over wireless point-to-multipoint up to 10km away. > Each ODU then has a reverse converter, which gives us EPON again. > > Once we are back on EPON, we can insert splitters, for example, > pre-connectorized outdoor 1:16 boxes. Every customer install now involves a > 100 meter roll of pre-connectorized 2-core drop cable, and a $20 EPON ONU. > > Using this deployment method, we could connect up to 16 customers to a > single $200 endpoint, so the enpoint CAPEX per customer is now $12.5. Add > the ONU, cable, etc. and we have a per-install CAPEX of $82.5 (assuming the > same $50 of extras we had before), and an even shorter break-even. In > addition, as the endpoints support higher capacity, we can provision at > least the same, if not more, capacity per customer. > > Other advantages: the $200 ODU is no longer customer equipment and CAPEX, > but network equipment, and as such, can operate under a longer break-even > timeline, and be financed by infrastructure PE funds, for example. As a > result, churn has a much lower financial impact on the operator. > > The main reason why this wouldn't work today is that EPON, as we know, is > synchronous, and requires the OLT to orchestrate the amount of time each > ONU can transmit, and when. Having wireless hops and media conversions will > introduce latencies which can break down the communications (e.g. one ONU > may transmit, get delayed on the radio link, and end up overlapping another > ONU that transmitted on the next slot). Thus, either the "magic" box needs > to account for this, or an new hybrid EPON-wireless protocol developed. > > My main point here: the industry is moving away from the unconnected. All > the claims I heard and saw at MWC about "connecting the unconnected" had > zero resonance with the financial drivers that the unconnected really > operate under, on top of IT literacy, digital skills, devices, power... > > Best, > > Mike > On Mar 14, 2023 at 05:27 +0100, rjmcmahon via Starlink < > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, wrote: > > To change the topic - curious to thoughts on FiWi. > > Imagine a world with no copper cable called FiWi (Fiber,VCSEL/CMOS > Radios, Antennas) and which is point to point inside a building > connected to virtualized APs fiber hops away. Each remote radio head > (RRH) would consume 5W or less and only when active. No need for things > like zigbee, or meshes, or threads as each radio has a fiber connection > via Corning's actifi or equivalent. Eliminate the AP/Client power > imbalance. Plastics also can house smoke or other sensors. > > Some reminders from Paul Baran in 1994 (and from David Reed) > > o) Shorter range rf transceivers connected to fiber could produce a > significant improvement - - tremendous improvement, really. > o) a mixture of terrestrial links plus shorter range radio links has the > effect of increasing by orders and orders of magnitude the amount of > frequency spectrum that can be made available. > o) By authorizing high power to support a few users to reach slightly > longer distances we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to serve the > many. > o) Communications systems can be built with 10dB ratio > o) Digital transmission when properly done allows a small signal to > noise ratio to be used successfully to retrieve an error free signal. > o) And, never forget, any transmission capacity not used is wasted > forever, like water over the dam. Not using such techniques represent > lost opportunity. > > And on waveguides: > > o) "Fiber transmission loss is ~0.5dB/km for single mode fiber, > independent of modulation" > o) “Copper cables and PCB traces are very frequency dependent. At > 100Gb/s, the loss is in dB/inch." > o) "Free space: the power density of the radio waves decreases with the > square of distance from the transmitting antenna due to spreading of the > electromagnetic energy in space according to the inverse square law" > > The sunk costs & long-lived parts of FiWi are the fiber and the CPE > plastics & antennas, as CMOS radios+ & fiber/laser, e.g. VCSEL could be > pluggable, allowing for field upgrades. Just like swapping out SFP in a > data center. > > This approach basically drives out WiFi latency by eliminating shared > queues and increases capacity by orders of magnitude by leveraging 10dB > in the spatial dimension, all of which is achieved by a physical design. > Just place enough RRHs as needed (similar to a pop up sprinkler in an > irrigation system.) > > Start and build this for an MDU and the value of the building improves. > Sadly, there seems no way to capture that value other than over long > term use. It doesn't matter whether the leader of the HOA tries to > capture the value or if a last mile provider tries. The value remains > sunk or hidden with nothing on the asset side of the balance sheet. > We've got a CAPEX spend that has to be made up via "OPEX returns" over > years. > > But the asset is there. > > How do we do this? > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > > _______________________________________________ > Rpm mailing list > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm > -- Come Heckle Mar 6-9 at: https://www.understandinglatency.com / Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC