From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 971393CB37 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2023 18:47:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-d84d883c1b6so2439019276.0 for ; Thu, 05 Oct 2023 15:47:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aterlo.com; s=google; t=1696546068; x=1697150868; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=USHN0ITo8NLmMN0BYA5faTpE59iY6x3WoAEBkDuDQuo=; b=2yFoV2IEyvtXQeJAoaqCV5B3S+a4CKDWK/vER2Kg6Cw3fJw9KVZ2dRhKfwtFs/FLWQ jP0jZhDX0AXlhUPZ/zSscUHWLLkuzCr4M8dgNftlhNpahYbnTEPHb2h7mTe5py0N1grG iKwRsluO1Wz+cyA2B3dnUSb8zQsOxEXHmHIXo= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696546068; x=1697150868; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=USHN0ITo8NLmMN0BYA5faTpE59iY6x3WoAEBkDuDQuo=; b=v9AZvjc1EL/ZBGoaDqFeHvV7YBsijU7EY1deTIjLNnQ5Pd4GvyaKkZqs5HQIyS8ctY kvyu2aA2LCWhdXOaBwqqLbFB9dbEq4Czt8fj3bxF1/C9BBG7W2pTmKwkM1ndUysBPEvr FoZFvbXEl6B9cThJ1fKlLDLs1Z8XLwDWwlVzQwB7utxqbwW0Moxxamp11q4U/1pTI9Gg kD/SiBwFjgH9vN9sPX4ssB3F4eAmWIdXzd0y67iw0x9AnI9Xjlmk3GMfeHytVHImoxII z9eb+ek/F4Gc0cGLmbyXfhmIFUWZ5qpCdamOrQ36ZRzGvKWc5w7FOODAx1ZvfqIey1y0 1q2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwXdBSvQE7ByyI9p5gCSnU8qlLt6asx1zs6SFHvyNC5SJMYHhCV 1AlFrlijzGlbBweTNK9+ucsy9DKVvu/mlJujtTjPLgiVq5zF82HXKvc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHPzfiuuYjpJDX/vAIeQ4t1RjE5xWatlyzioQIyTx8T8PUnDVzOaABUSdZZzjcv8RiqjLgmW11zKDnkOo61y1k= X-Received: by 2002:a25:b110:0:b0:d81:41e9:6cf5 with SMTP id g16-20020a25b110000000b00d8141e96cf5mr1787011ybj.27.1696546067867; Thu, 05 Oct 2023 15:47:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6D7F7242-248B-4FD4-BEDA-EE931B7DFE3C@andyring.com> <0a158308-e0c1-4722-8013-745e3ded232d@app.fastmail.com> <1B7534EB-2FCE-4500-B53D-F1DFEED1DBC7@gmx.de> <7o88o9p0-049q-s54r-604p-1n995rq89p60@ynat.uz> <6ED94BF433874449A02EA959E7B95B54@SRA6> In-Reply-To: <6ED94BF433874449A02EA959E7B95B54@SRA6> From: Jeremy Austin Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 14:47:36 -0800 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back=21_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_asp?= =?UTF-8?Q?ects_heard_this_time=21?= , dickroy@alum.mit.edu Cc: "Livingood, Jason" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b88d930606ffe9fa" Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2023 22:47:48 -0000 --000000000000b88d930606ffe9fa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 2:17=E2=80=AFPM Dick Roy via Nnagain < nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > Has anyone done an analysis of the capacity of FWA systems (in > bits/sec/Hz/km^3)???? I am suspicious that the capacity falls way short = of > that which cable guys have at their disposal, and that as the FWA network= s > get loaded, performance is going to degrade dramatically ultimately > resulting in churn back to the cable guys. It's very expensive to compet= e > with already sunk FTTH or even FTTC. > I have done this, and blogged on it. What I have not done fully, and what ignites the FWA-vs-fiber argument re BEAD, is add one more term to that string of divisors. The term is $. WISPA=E2=80=99s argument, for example, is not that fiber is cheaper per bit= over 30 years, but that FWA is cheaper *now*. If you build planning for a useful life of 7 years, you are reasonably safe today if you include enough overhead for annual growth of 20%, or so history would lead us to believe. If your technology allows average of 10 megabits per user at peak busy hour (generous today), you need approximately 200% headroom to survive without compression, assuming no new technologies radically change user behavior. Risky gamble. Jeremy Austin > --000000000000b88d930606ffe9fa Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 2:17=E2=80=AFPM Dick Roy via Nnagain= <nnagain@lists.bufferb= loat.net> wrote:

Has anyone done an= analysis of the capacity of FWA systems (in bits/sec/Hz/km^3)????=C2=A0 I am suspicious that the capacity falls way sho= rt of that which cable guys have at their disposal, and that as the FWA networks = get loaded, performance is going to degrade dramatically ultimately resulting i= n churn back to the cable guys.=C2=A0 It's very expensive to compete with= already sunk FTTH or even FTTC.


I have done this, and blogged on it. What I= have not done fully, and what ignites the FWA-vs-fiber argument re BEAD, i= s add one more term to that string of divisors. The term is $.

WISPA=E2=80=99s argument, for exampl= e, is not that fiber is cheaper per bit over 30 years, but that FWA is chea= per *now*.

If you build = planning for a useful life of 7 years, you are reasonably safe today if you= include enough overhead for annual growth of 20%, or so history would lead= us to believe. If your technology allows average of 10 megabits per user a= t peak busy hour (generous today), you need approximately 200% headroom to = survive without compression, assuming no new technologies radically change = user behavior. Risky gamble.

Jeremy Austin

=

--000000000000b88d930606ffe9fa--