Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[David Fernández]

Hi David,

That's true: "any communications infrastructure that you mandate get
built into new buildings is going to be obsolete long before the
building is"

I am afraid this is also true: any communications infrastructure that
you do not mandate to get built into new buildings will never make it
into them afterwards.

So, we end up having things like IAB (Integrated Access and Backhaul)
defined to extend 5G coverage to downtown areas, where buildings
cannot be touched for historical/artistic reasons (extreme case).

Some time ago I tried to install coaxial in a flat that had only
copper wiring. It was impossible. Coaxial was too thick to pass
through the hole reserved for copper telephone cable (even removing
old cables), so I stayed with DSL. It is important that architects
consider the cabling needs of homes, not only for electricity. I have
used PLC (Power Line Comms) to extend Wi-Fi coverage at multiple floor
homes, but it is not perfect solution. I would not recommend it.
Wireless mesh repeaters are worst, to my experience.

Regards,

David

> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> To: David Fernández <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] On FiWi
> Message-ID: <8qq0r5n2-s836-1080-3362-2o8nr3qn1044@ynat.uz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> any communications infrastructure that you mandate get built into new
> buildings
> is going to be obsolete long before the building is (especially radio
> equipment)
>
> I am a big fan of using wire (or fiber) directly to equipment when you can.
> wifi
> is sexy and 'easy' to setup, but there is only so much airtime available,
> and
> your radio footprint where you produce intereference to other equipment is
> much
> larger than the usable footprint (let alone what your requirements are), so
> it
> is far more work to share reasonably. You also are sending a lot of power
> places
> where it's not useful, so you are wasting energy compared to having
> somethign
> hard-wired.
>
> There are times when you need the mobility that radio gives you, and times
> where
> it's advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but please don't fall into the
> trap
> of thinking that wires are obsolete and should be discouraged, it's exactly
> the
> opposite, the more we can hard-wire, the better the mobile devices that
> can't be
> hard wired can perform.
>
> David Lang
>
>   On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, David Fernández via Starlink wrote:
>
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>> If you want that FiWi infrastructure on buildings, I am afraid that
>> you only get it (in the long term) with a law that makes it mandatory
>> to make new buildings with that infrastructure for communications.
>>
>> In Spain, it should be added to this:
>> https://avancedigital.mineco.gob.es/Infraestructuras/Paginas/Index.aspx
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> David
>>
>>> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 21:27:23 -0700
>>> From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
>>> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>>> Cc: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>, Jeremy Austin <jeremy@aterlo.com>, Rpm
>>> 	<rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>, libreqos
>>> 	<libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: [Starlink] On FiWi
>>> Message-ID: <bc1cfdf998bb6bb246a632f0dc0fe3a8@rjmcmahon.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>
>>> 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
>
> ------------------------------

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi David,

> On Mar 15, 2023, at 16:24, David Fernández via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> That's true: "any communications infrastructure that you mandate get
> built into new buildings is going to be obsolete long before the
> building is"

	There is some truth to that, I live in a house from 1918...

> 
> I am afraid this is also true: any communications infrastructure that
> you do not mandate to get built into new buildings will never make it
> into them afterwards.

	However the internal infrastructure was not last touched 1918... so updates are possible ;)

> 
> So, we end up having things like IAB (Integrated Access and Backhaul)
> defined to extend 5G coverage to downtown areas, where buildings
> cannot be touched for historical/artistic reasons (extreme case).
> 
> Some time ago I tried to install coaxial in a flat that had only
> copper wiring. It was impossible. Coaxial was too thick to pass
> through the hole reserved for copper telephone cable (even removing
> old cables), so I stayed with DSL. It is important that architects
> consider the cabling needs of homes, not only for electricity.

	Especially as power lines are often placed inside walls in "plaster" over here. However even for power it has long been clear that the option with long term usability is to not put the actual cables in plaster, but some flexible tubes, wide enough to allow a few parallel cables. However for telecommunication wiring things are often a bit special... like DSL-wires is best not placed cloae and parallel to power lines, fiber and things like cat8 cables have different minimal turning radii that power cables, ... all things that make it preferable to design two distribution tube systems, one for power one for comms.


> I have
> used PLC (Power Line Comms) to extend Wi-Fi coverage at multiple floor
> homes, but it is not perfect solution.

	+1; not ideal especially for VDSL (profile 35b is quite sensitive to MIMO PLC adapter which do carnage to the upper frequency sub carriers.

> I would not recommend it.
> Wireless mesh repeaters are worst, to my experience.

	Funny, over here we are still mainly VDSL based (FTTH is coming, just not very fast ;) ) and here PLC is typically less desirable than meshes of any kind.

Regards
	Sebastian

> 
> Regards,
> 
> David
> 
>> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>> To: David Fernández <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] On FiWi
>> Message-ID: <8qq0r5n2-s836-1080-3362-2o8nr3qn1044@ynat.uz>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>> 
>> any communications infrastructure that you mandate get built into new
>> buildings
>> is going to be obsolete long before the building is (especially radio
>> equipment)
>> 
>> I am a big fan of using wire (or fiber) directly to equipment when you can.
>> wifi
>> is sexy and 'easy' to setup, but there is only so much airtime available,
>> and
>> your radio footprint where you produce intereference to other equipment is
>> much
>> larger than the usable footprint (let alone what your requirements are), so
>> it
>> is far more work to share reasonably. You also are sending a lot of power
>> places
>> where it's not useful, so you are wasting energy compared to having
>> somethign
>> hard-wired.
>> 
>> There are times when you need the mobility that radio gives you, and times
>> where
>> it's advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but please don't fall into the
>> trap
>> of thinking that wires are obsolete and should be discouraged, it's exactly
>> the
>> opposite, the more we can hard-wire, the better the mobile devices that
>> can't be
>> hard wired can perform.
>> 
>> David Lang
>> 
>>  On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, David Fernández via Starlink wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Bob,
>>> 
>>> If you want that FiWi infrastructure on buildings, I am afraid that
>>> you only get it (in the long term) with a law that makes it mandatory
>>> to make new buildings with that infrastructure for communications.
>>> 
>>> In Spain, it should be added to this:
>>> https://avancedigital.mineco.gob.es/Infraestructuras/Paginas/Index.aspx
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 21:27:23 -0700
>>>> From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
>>>> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>>>> Cc: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>, Jeremy Austin <jeremy@aterlo.com>, Rpm
>>>> 	<rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>, libreqos
>>>> 	<libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>>> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: [Starlink] On FiWi
>>>> Message-ID: <bc1cfdf998bb6bb246a632f0dc0fe3a8@rjmcmahon.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>> 
>> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[Dave Taht]

I still think that ethernet over powerline could make a comeback, if
they fixed the bloat. It was otherwise "good enough".

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[Vint Cerf]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 689 bytes --]

that did not work in a test in Silver Spring, MD because the signals got
mashed in the transformer.

v


On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 12:17 PM Dave Taht via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> I still think that ethernet over powerline could make a comeback, if
> they fixed the bloat. It was otherwise "good enough".
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>


-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1461 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3995 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Dave,

> On Mar 15, 2023, at 17:17, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I still think that ethernet over powerline could make a comeback, if
> they fixed the bloat. It was otherwise "good enough".


Partly... talk to your local HAM enthusiast ;)

PLC (and VDSL for that matter) are not using licensed spectrum* but are secondary users of spectrum licensed to others. That per se is not a problem, the problem comes in as neither POTS wire pairs nor electricity wiring was ever designed with the intent of putting MHz frequency signals on. POTS wires are at least twisted and hence "not terrible", but power cables often are nicely parallel and are decent enough antennas to cause problems for the licensed spectrum users (over here HAM radio amateurs mostly) as well as VDSL2 lines. Once the switch from DSL to FTTH has been made PLC becomes considerably more attractive again (except for HAMs).

Regards
	Sebastian

P.S.: In nice convergence PLC uses similar MIMO approaches as WiFi to increase the capacity.



*) Let's ignore whether licensing spectrum is that great an idea in the first place, I believe David Reed had good arguments against it

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7872 bytes --]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, David Fernández via Starlink wrote:

> I am afraid this is also true: any communications infrastructure that
> you do not mandate to get built into new buildings will never make it
> into them afterwards.

don't mandate a specific technology, mandate paths for that technology to use.

If a building was built with wire chases for Cat 5 cable, it's usable for a lot 
of different things, and it's then easier to upgrade that cat5 to some new 
cables.

But if it wasn't even wired for telephone or electricity (think big stone 
castles), retrofitting it in is very hard.

It will happen if people want it enough, but it helps if there is provision for 
wiring to happen.

And the provision should be to each room if possible, not just to each 
floor/apartment (think early telephones where there was one per house)

> So, we end up having things like IAB (Integrated Access and Backhaul)
> defined to extend 5G coverage to downtown areas, where buildings
> cannot be touched for historical/artistic reasons (extreme case).

it's more a case that the 5G band requires a huge number of nodes to operate.

> Some time ago I tried to install coaxial in a flat that had only
> copper wiring. It was impossible. Coaxial was too thick to pass
> through the hole reserved for copper telephone cable (even removing
> old cables), so I stayed with DSL. It is important that architects
> consider the cabling needs of homes, not only for electricity. I have
> used PLC (Power Line Comms) to extend Wi-Fi coverage at multiple floor
> homes, but it is not perfect solution. I would not recommend it.
> Wireless mesh repeaters are worst, to my experience.

wireless mesh can work, but only if you use a different band for the uplink 
communication between nodes than you use for your endpoint devices to 
communicate to the nodes. People try to use the same band for both and it just 
doesn't work.

David Lang

> Regards,
>
> David
>
>> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>> To: David Fernández <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] On FiWi
>> Message-ID: <8qq0r5n2-s836-1080-3362-2o8nr3qn1044@ynat.uz>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> any communications infrastructure that you mandate get built into new
>> buildings
>> is going to be obsolete long before the building is (especially radio
>> equipment)
>>
>> I am a big fan of using wire (or fiber) directly to equipment when you can.
>> wifi
>> is sexy and 'easy' to setup, but there is only so much airtime available,
>> and
>> your radio footprint where you produce intereference to other equipment is
>> much
>> larger than the usable footprint (let alone what your requirements are), so
>> it
>> is far more work to share reasonably. You also are sending a lot of power
>> places
>> where it's not useful, so you are wasting energy compared to having
>> somethign
>> hard-wired.
>>
>> There are times when you need the mobility that radio gives you, and times
>> where
>> it's advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but please don't fall into the
>> trap
>> of thinking that wires are obsolete and should be discouraged, it's exactly
>> the
>> opposite, the more we can hard-wire, the better the mobile devices that
>> can't be
>> hard wired can perform.
>>
>> David Lang
>>
>>   On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, David Fernández via Starlink wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Bob,
>>>
>>> If you want that FiWi infrastructure on buildings, I am afraid that
>>> you only get it (in the long term) with a law that makes it mandatory
>>> to make new buildings with that infrastructure for communications.
>>>
>>> In Spain, it should be added to this:
>>> https://avancedigital.mineco.gob.es/Infraestructuras/Paginas/Index.aspx
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 21:27:23 -0700
>>>> From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
>>>> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>>>> Cc: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>, Jeremy Austin <jeremy@aterlo.com>, Rpm
>>>> 	<rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>, libreqos
>>>> 	<libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>>> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: [Starlink] On FiWi
>>>> Message-ID: <bc1cfdf998bb6bb246a632f0dc0fe3a8@rjmcmahon.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[David Fernández]

Well, if you live in a house from 1918 and you want to pass coaxial
cables or Ethernet or fiber, unless they are visible, it is going to
cost you a lot of money and maybe you will not be able to alter the
facade with cables passing visible from the street.

Of course, old buildings can be refurbished, but most of people just
avoid it as much as possible, because of money and aesthetics. So,
making laws asking for minimum infrastructure for telecommunication
installations on buildings, like having common areas and spaces for
antennas in the rooftop and for distributing communication cables are
a good idea, that will save money to the building owner. It is also
making it easier to people renting that houses to get some services.

I don't want to imagine the discussions and major works that I would
need, for example, to put a Starlink antenna on the rooftop of any
building of apartments, and passing cables, installing switches, to
share the access with neighbours or not. Of course, anything can be
done, but it cost a lot, and not only money.

I understand that PLC can be worse than Wi-Fi mesh for VDSL, because
of the interferences of PLC on VDSL. Where I tried, the house with
multiple floors, the access was HFC.

But well, Internet access is getting more and more personal and done
mainly though mobile devices. In the future, maybe the phone company
will put a femtocell on each house and you will just connect to it and
pay a mobile subscription. Who knows. That makes me think how is
people with Starlink managing to get SMS for 2FA or regular phone
calls on their mobiles, when they only have the Dishy and no mobile
coverage, e.g. going somewhere remote with an RV.

Regards,

David

2023-03-15 17:09 GMT+01:00, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>:
> Hi David,
>
>> On Mar 15, 2023, at 16:24, David Fernández via Starlink
>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> That's true: "any communications infrastructure that you mandate get
>> built into new buildings is going to be obsolete long before the
>> building is"
>
> 	There is some truth to that, I live in a house from 1918...
>
>>
>> I am afraid this is also true: any communications infrastructure that
>> you do not mandate to get built into new buildings will never make it
>> into them afterwards.
>
> 	However the internal infrastructure was not last touched 1918... so updates
> are possible ;)
>
>>
>> So, we end up having things like IAB (Integrated Access and Backhaul)
>> defined to extend 5G coverage to downtown areas, where buildings
>> cannot be touched for historical/artistic reasons (extreme case).
>>
>> Some time ago I tried to install coaxial in a flat that had only
>> copper wiring. It was impossible. Coaxial was too thick to pass
>> through the hole reserved for copper telephone cable (even removing
>> old cables), so I stayed with DSL. It is important that architects
>> consider the cabling needs of homes, not only for electricity.
>
> 	Especially as power lines are often placed inside walls in "plaster" over
> here. However even for power it has long been clear that the option with
> long term usability is to not put the actual cables in plaster, but some
> flexible tubes, wide enough to allow a few parallel cables. However for
> telecommunication wiring things are often a bit special... like DSL-wires is
> best not placed cloae and parallel to power lines, fiber and things like
> cat8 cables have different minimal turning radii that power cables, ... all
> things that make it preferable to design two distribution tube systems, one
> for power one for comms.
>
>
>> I have
>> used PLC (Power Line Comms) to extend Wi-Fi coverage at multiple floor
>> homes, but it is not perfect solution.
>
> 	+1; not ideal especially for VDSL (profile 35b is quite sensitive to MIMO
> PLC adapter which do carnage to the upper frequency sub carriers.
>
>> I would not recommend it.
>> Wireless mesh repeaters are worst, to my experience.
>
> 	Funny, over here we are still mainly VDSL based (FTTH is coming, just not
> very fast ;) ) and here PLC is typically less desirable than meshes of any
> kind.
>
> Regards
> 	Sebastian
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> David
>>
>>> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> To: David Fernández <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] On FiWi
>>> Message-ID: <8qq0r5n2-s836-1080-3362-2o8nr3qn1044@ynat.uz>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>
>>> any communications infrastructure that you mandate get built into new
>>> buildings
>>> is going to be obsolete long before the building is (especially radio
>>> equipment)
>>>
>>> I am a big fan of using wire (or fiber) directly to equipment when you
>>> can.
>>> wifi
>>> is sexy and 'easy' to setup, but there is only so much airtime
>>> available,
>>> and
>>> your radio footprint where you produce intereference to other equipment
>>> is
>>> much
>>> larger than the usable footprint (let alone what your requirements are),
>>> so
>>> it
>>> is far more work to share reasonably. You also are sending a lot of
>>> power
>>> places
>>> where it's not useful, so you are wasting energy compared to having
>>> somethign
>>> hard-wired.
>>>
>>> There are times when you need the mobility that radio gives you, and
>>> times
>>> where
>>> it's advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but please don't fall into
>>> the
>>> trap
>>> of thinking that wires are obsolete and should be discouraged, it's
>>> exactly
>>> the
>>> opposite, the more we can hard-wire, the better the mobile devices that
>>> can't be
>>> hard wired can perform.
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>>
>>>  On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, David Fernández via Starlink wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>
>>>> If you want that FiWi infrastructure on buildings, I am afraid that
>>>> you only get it (in the long term) with a law that makes it mandatory
>>>> to make new buildings with that infrastructure for communications.
>>>>
>>>> In Spain, it should be added to this:
>>>> https://avancedigital.mineco.gob.es/Infraestructuras/Paginas/Index.aspx
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 21:27:23 -0700
>>>>> From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
>>>>> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>>>>> Cc: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>, Jeremy Austin <jeremy@aterlo.com>, Rpm
>>>>> 	<rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>, libreqos
>>>>> 	<libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>>>> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: [Starlink] On FiWi
>>>>> Message-ID: <bc1cfdf998bb6bb246a632f0dc0fe3a8@rjmcmahon.com>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[David Fernández]

I remember that idea of distributing Internet to houses via power
lines and the transformer issues, but there are not transformers
inside a single house, are there?

Ethernet over PLC can be an option inside a house, when walls block
Wi-Fi signal from the main router in the living room. Of course, fiber
would be better, but a couple of PLC modems is easier to get and it
works more or less (I was getting 10 Mbit/s link).

Regards,

David

2023-03-15 17:19 GMT+01:00, Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>:
> that did not work in a test in Silver Spring, MD because the signals got
> mashed in the transformer.
>
> v
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 12:17 PM Dave Taht via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> I still think that ethernet over powerline could make a comeback, if
>> they fixed the bloat. It was otherwise "good enough".
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>
>
> --
> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> Vint Cerf
> Google, LLC
> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
> +1 (571) 213 1346
>
>
> until further notice
>

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi David,


> On Mar 15, 2023, at 22:07, David Fernández via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> Well, if you live in a house from 1918 and you want to pass coaxial
> cables

	I don't... coaxial cable is not my cup of tea ;)

> or Ethernet or fiber, unless they are visible, it is going to
> cost you a lot of money and maybe you will not be able to alter the
> facade with cables passing visible from the street.

	The house (where we live in an apartment in) is not on the street, and both the DOSIS and the telephony cabling enters via the basement. And yes putting cables in the walls is hard and dirty (brick walls). This being rented property I kept the wall engineering to a minimum.

> 
> Of course, old buildings can be refurbished,

	And routinely are, neither the fresh and waste water, heating nor the electricity systems in the house are the respective first versions. However I admit that change still is slow.


> but most of people just
> avoid it as much as possible, because of money and aesthetics. So,
> making laws asking for minimum infrastructure for telecommunication
> installations on buildings, like having common areas and spaces for
> antennas in the rooftop and for distributing communication cables are
> a good idea, that will save money to the building owner. It is also
> making it easier to people renting that houses to get some services.

	Yes and no, it externalizes some cost and moves around who pays for it. Which is fine with me, I accept that infrastructure is something where the community can be expected to chip in... (although I prefer the access network in public hands, where "chip" in can be easily organized and who generally are used to running infrastructure; then have the free market organize the services using that infrastructure)

> 
> I don't want to imagine the discussions and major works that I would
> need, for example, to put a Starlink antenna on the rooftop of any
> building of apartments, and passing cables, installing switches, to
> share the access with neighbours or not. Of course, anything can be
> done, but it cost a lot, and not only money.
> 
> I understand that PLC can be worse than Wi-Fi mesh for VDSL, because
> of the interferences of PLC on VDSL. Where I tried, the house with
> multiple floors, the access was HFC.

	Yepp, HFC/DOCSIS and FTTH, even LTE/5G are relative immune to PLC, however PLC often does not cross from apartment t apartment here due to how internal wiring is done, but inside a single unit electric grid it is supposed to work... my apartment is small enough not to need that, and I rather use an ethernet cable anyway. But I hread of users happy with PLC, after putting a cake shaper on both sides to reign in the original vendor firmware's tendency for high jitter.

> But well, Internet access is getting more and more personal and done
> mainly though mobile devices.

	That is one direction, the other direction is that it is going to be switched over to fiber. And these are not mutually exclusive. But looking at the LTE/5G offers over here most have clear warts when judged as a way to organize internet access for a family. As you say carriers prefer that each individual get their own access via a phone. However that is incompatible with some important use cases...

> In the future, maybe the phone company
> will put a femtocell on each house and you will just connect to it and
> pay a mobile subscription. Who knows.

	Maybe, hopefully not. I will not be looking forward to that future. Telcos and mobile carriers do not have the kind of business acumen that endears them to me. Case in point, the big ex-monopoly telco's in Europe are lobbying the EU to make big content providers pay for he privilege of causing the traffic that end-users consume... While my heart does not go out for the "poor" big 5 tech quasi-monopolies either, I am long enough in the game that I know that they will claw back that cost from their customers. Call me old-fashioned, but I do not want to pay twice for my internet access, once directly to the Telco and once infdirectly through higher costs for content. That said, I am not unhappy with my ISP and my mobile carrier, but I do not want to tempt them ;)

> That makes me think how is
> people with Starlink managing to get SMS for 2FA or regular phone
> calls on their mobiles,

	Honestly mobile phones are terrible 2FA devices... SMS is not secure (for little money you can organize to use SS& whith which you can route accessof SMS where ever you want, and mobile phone have a pretty gross update story, looking at you Android (that also affects Google itself, updates and especially security updates are stopped way typically well before the devices have stopped being useful).


> when they only have the Dishy and no mobile
> coverage, e.g. going somewhere remote with an RV.

	You switch to a non SMS based 2FA method, on the same phone that while for different reasons has a similarly sketchy security offering as SMS...

> 
> Regards,
> 
> David
> 
> 2023-03-15 17:09 GMT+01:00, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>:
>> Hi David,
>> 
>>> On Mar 15, 2023, at 16:24, David Fernández via Starlink
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi David,
>>> 
>>> That's true: "any communications infrastructure that you mandate get
>>> built into new buildings is going to be obsolete long before the
>>> building is"
>> 
>> 	There is some truth to that, I live in a house from 1918...
>> 
>>> 
>>> I am afraid this is also true: any communications infrastructure that
>>> you do not mandate to get built into new buildings will never make it
>>> into them afterwards.
>> 
>> 	However the internal infrastructure was not last touched 1918... so updates
>> are possible ;)
>> 
>>> 
>>> So, we end up having things like IAB (Integrated Access and Backhaul)
>>> defined to extend 5G coverage to downtown areas, where buildings
>>> cannot be touched for historical/artistic reasons (extreme case).
>>> 
>>> Some time ago I tried to install coaxial in a flat that had only
>>> copper wiring. It was impossible. Coaxial was too thick to pass
>>> through the hole reserved for copper telephone cable (even removing
>>> old cables), so I stayed with DSL. It is important that architects
>>> consider the cabling needs of homes, not only for electricity.
>> 
>> 	Especially as power lines are often placed inside walls in "plaster" over
>> here. However even for power it has long been clear that the option with
>> long term usability is to not put the actual cables in plaster, but some
>> flexible tubes, wide enough to allow a few parallel cables. However for
>> telecommunication wiring things are often a bit special... like DSL-wires is
>> best not placed cloae and parallel to power lines, fiber and things like
>> cat8 cables have different minimal turning radii that power cables, ... all
>> things that make it preferable to design two distribution tube systems, one
>> for power one for comms.
>> 
>> 
>>> I have
>>> used PLC (Power Line Comms) to extend Wi-Fi coverage at multiple floor
>>> homes, but it is not perfect solution.
>> 
>> 	+1; not ideal especially for VDSL (profile 35b is quite sensitive to MIMO
>> PLC adapter which do carnage to the upper frequency sub carriers.
>> 
>>> I would not recommend it.
>>> Wireless mesh repeaters are worst, to my experience.
>> 
>> 	Funny, over here we are still mainly VDSL based (FTTH is coming, just not
>> very fast ;) ) and here PLC is typically less desirable than meshes of any
>> kind.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 	Sebastian
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>>> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> To: David Fernández <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] On FiWi
>>>> Message-ID: <8qq0r5n2-s836-1080-3362-2o8nr3qn1044@ynat.uz>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>> 
>>>> any communications infrastructure that you mandate get built into new
>>>> buildings
>>>> is going to be obsolete long before the building is (especially radio
>>>> equipment)
>>>> 
>>>> I am a big fan of using wire (or fiber) directly to equipment when you
>>>> can.
>>>> wifi
>>>> is sexy and 'easy' to setup, but there is only so much airtime
>>>> available,
>>>> and
>>>> your radio footprint where you produce intereference to other equipment
>>>> is
>>>> much
>>>> larger than the usable footprint (let alone what your requirements are),
>>>> so
>>>> it
>>>> is far more work to share reasonably. You also are sending a lot of
>>>> power
>>>> places
>>>> where it's not useful, so you are wasting energy compared to having
>>>> somethign
>>>> hard-wired.
>>>> 
>>>> There are times when you need the mobility that radio gives you, and
>>>> times
>>>> where
>>>> it's advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but please don't fall into
>>>> the
>>>> trap
>>>> of thinking that wires are obsolete and should be discouraged, it's
>>>> exactly
>>>> the
>>>> opposite, the more we can hard-wire, the better the mobile devices that
>>>> can't be
>>>> hard wired can perform.
>>>> 
>>>> David Lang
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, David Fernández via Starlink wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you want that FiWi infrastructure on buildings, I am afraid that
>>>>> you only get it (in the long term) with a law that makes it mandatory
>>>>> to make new buildings with that infrastructure for communications.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In Spain, it should be added to this:
>>>>> https://avancedigital.mineco.gob.es/Infraestructuras/Paginas/Index.aspx
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> David
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 21:27:23 -0700
>>>>>> From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
>>>>>> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>>>>>> Cc: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>, Jeremy Austin <jeremy@aterlo.com>, Rpm
>>>>>> 	<rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>, libreqos
>>>>>> 	<libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>>>>> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: [Starlink] On FiWi
>>>>>> Message-ID: <bc1cfdf998bb6bb246a632f0dc0fe3a8@rjmcmahon.com>
>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[Sebastian Moeller]

> On Mar 15, 2023, at 22:19, David Fernández via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> I remember that idea of distributing Internet to houses via power
> lines and the transformer issues, but there are not transformers
> inside a single house, are there?

It is not only transformers, but also different phases IIRC. Conceptually, being a shared medium, it would actually be good if PLC stopped at the per-apartment power meter ... it probably does not.


> 
> Ethernet over PLC can be an option inside a house, when walls block
> Wi-Fi signal from the main router in the living room. Of course, fiber
> would be better, but a couple of PLC modems is easier to get and it
> works more or less (I was getting 10 Mbit/s link).

Flat profile ethernet CAT6 cables are surprisingly convenient to fudge around in a way that while not beautiful is  not "an eye sore", and easily carries 1/2.5/5/10 Gbps ethernet full duplex (no TDM no FDM)... If you get them in white on a white wall they can be made inoffensive with little effort.


> Regards,
> 
> David
> 
> 2023-03-15 17:19 GMT+01:00, Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>:
>> that did not work in a test in Silver Spring, MD because the signals got
>> mashed in the transformer.
>> 
>> v
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 12:17 PM Dave Taht via Starlink <
>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I still think that ethernet over powerline could make a comeback, if
>>> they fixed the bloat. It was otherwise "good enough".
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>> Vint Cerf
>> Google, LLC
>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>> Reston, VA 20190
>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>> 
>> 
>> until further notice
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[David Fernández]

+1 "don't mandate a specific technology, mandate paths for that
technology to use."

In practice, the technology mandated forces the available room.
Clearly, the room left for telephone cables is not enough for coaxial.
I experienced that issue. Retrofitting is hard and expensive, yes.

"wireless mesh can work, but only if you use a different band for the
uplink communication between nodes than you use for your endpoint
devices to communicate to the nodes. People try to use the same band
for both and it just doesn't work."

The wireless mesh network I setup, given by the ISP to extend coverage
in the house, comes with an app that does not offer you any option to
select any band. It is automagically setup. The maximum you can do is
to give a name to each router.

Regards,

David

> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 12:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> To: David Fernández <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] On FiWi
> Message-ID: <7n37s8o0-6q13-2qrs-qo84-2oo3o88o9r8r@ynat.uz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, David Fernández via Starlink wrote:
>
>> I am afraid this is also true: any communications infrastructure that
>> you do not mandate to get built into new buildings will never make it
>> into them afterwards.
>
> don't mandate a specific technology, mandate paths for that technology to
> use.
>
> If a building was built with wire chases for Cat 5 cable, it's usable for a
> lot
> of different things, and it's then easier to upgrade that cat5 to some new
> cables.
>
> But if it wasn't even wired for telephone or electricity (think big stone
> castles), retrofitting it in is very hard.
>
> It will happen if people want it enough, but it helps if there is provision
> for
> wiring to happen.
>
> And the provision should be to each room if possible, not just to each
> floor/apartment (think early telephones where there was one per house)
>
>> So, we end up having things like IAB (Integrated Access and Backhaul)
>> defined to extend 5G coverage to downtown areas, where buildings
>> cannot be touched for historical/artistic reasons (extreme case).
>
> it's more a case that the 5G band requires a huge number of nodes to
> operate.
>
>> Some time ago I tried to install coaxial in a flat that had only
>> copper wiring. It was impossible. Coaxial was too thick to pass
>> through the hole reserved for copper telephone cable (even removing
>> old cables), so I stayed with DSL. It is important that architects
>> consider the cabling needs of homes, not only for electricity. I have
>> used PLC (Power Line Comms) to extend Wi-Fi coverage at multiple floor
>> homes, but it is not perfect solution. I would not recommend it.
>> Wireless mesh repeaters are worst, to my experience.
>
> wireless mesh can work, but only if you use a different band for the uplink
> communication between nodes than you use for your endpoint devices to
> communicate to the nodes. People try to use the same band for both and it
> just
> doesn't work.
>
> David Lang
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> David
>>
>>> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> To: David Fernández <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] On FiWi
>>> Message-ID: <8qq0r5n2-s836-1080-3362-2o8nr3qn1044@ynat.uz>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>
>>> any communications infrastructure that you mandate get built into new
>>> buildings
>>> is going to be obsolete long before the building is (especially radio
>>> equipment)
>>>
>>> I am a big fan of using wire (or fiber) directly to equipment when you
>>> can.
>>> wifi
>>> is sexy and 'easy' to setup, but there is only so much airtime available,
>>> and
>>> your radio footprint where you produce intereference to other equipment
>>> is
>>> much
>>> larger than the usable footprint (let alone what your requirements are),
>>> so
>>> it
>>> is far more work to share reasonably. You also are sending a lot of power
>>> places
>>> where it's not useful, so you are wasting energy compared to having
>>> somethign
>>> hard-wired.
>>>
>>> There are times when you need the mobility that radio gives you, and
>>> times
>>> where
>>> it's advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but please don't fall into
>>> the
>>> trap
>>> of thinking that wires are obsolete and should be discouraged, it's
>>> exactly
>>> the
>>> opposite, the more we can hard-wire, the better the mobile devices that
>>> can't be
>>> hard wired can perform.
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>>
>>>   On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, David Fernández via Starlink wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>
>>>> If you want that FiWi infrastructure on buildings, I am afraid that
>>>> you only get it (in the long term) with a law that makes it mandatory
>>>> to make new buildings with that infrastructure for communications.
>>>>
>>>> In Spain, it should be added to this:
>>>> https://avancedigital.mineco.gob.es/Infraestructuras/Paginas/Index.aspx
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 21:27:23 -0700
>>>>> From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
>>>>> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>>>>> Cc: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>, Jeremy Austin <jeremy@aterlo.com>, Rpm
>>>>> 	<rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>, libreqos
>>>>> 	<libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>>>> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: [Starlink] On FiWi
>>>>> Message-ID: <bc1cfdf998bb6bb246a632f0dc0fe3a8@rjmcmahon.com>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5144 bytes --]

any communications infrastructure that you mandate get built into new buildings 
is going to be obsolete long before the building is (especially radio equipment)

I am a big fan of using wire (or fiber) directly to equipment when you can. wifi 
is sexy and 'easy' to setup, but there is only so much airtime available, and 
your radio footprint where you produce intereference to other equipment is much 
larger than the usable footprint (let alone what your requirements are), so it 
is far more work to share reasonably. You also are sending a lot of power places 
where it's not useful, so you are wasting energy compared to having somethign 
hard-wired.

There are times when you need the mobility that radio gives you, and times where 
it's advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but please don't fall into the trap 
of thinking that wires are obsolete and should be discouraged, it's exactly the 
opposite, the more we can hard-wire, the better the mobile devices that can't be 
hard wired can perform.

David Lang

  On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, David Fernández via Starlink wrote:

> Hi Bob,
>
> If you want that FiWi infrastructure on buildings, I am afraid that
> you only get it (in the long term) with a law that makes it mandatory
> to make new buildings with that infrastructure for communications.
>
> In Spain, it should be added to this:
> https://avancedigital.mineco.gob.es/Infraestructuras/Paginas/Index.aspx
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
>> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 21:27:23 -0700
>> From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
>> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> Cc: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>, Jeremy Austin <jeremy@aterlo.com>, Rpm
>> 	<rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>, libreqos
>> 	<libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: [Starlink] On FiWi
>> Message-ID: <bc1cfdf998bb6bb246a632f0dc0fe3a8@rjmcmahon.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>
>> 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

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[Steve Stroh]

Bob:

Three technologies have come together in the past few years to make
(close to what you're proposing) a reality.

1. Airvine just announced a product that they posit is indoor fiber
backhaul... without the fiber. They use 60 GHz mesh to achieve up to 2
Gbps.

2. Wi-Fi 6E makes use of not just the 5 GHz band, but the 6 GHz band
to be able to use more than 1.5 GHz of spectrum for Wi-Fi. That allows
lots of demanding Wi-Fi users to stay out of each other's way,
especially if you shrink the range of the AP to basically just an
apartment.

3. CBRS allows private use of 3.5 GHz spectrum by individuals,
businesses and venues.

Run fiber to where it makes sense - such as down hallways to a fiber /
60 GHz transition point such as Airvine offers. Finish the last
hundred feet (into the apartment) with 6 GHz.

In commercial buildings such as apartments, smoke detectors are
generally wired to power. Install a combo smoke detector / Wi-Fi AP /
6 GHz end point.

Then the venue, such as an apartment building, can easily offer
Broadband Internet service, on a par with Comcast.

CBRS allows private phone service in buildings for internal use -
tightly managed, Internet of things that prefer cellular. Eventually
this will evolve to the point where if a building is "wired" with
CBRS, the cellcos will pay the building to act as a neutral carrier
for them, saving them the expense of having to "light up the building"
themselves, either internally with pico / microcells, or painting it
externally.

There's money to be made deploying these technologies, especially for
third parties to deploy and manage these systems. Venue owners
desperately want "only one neck to wring" when things go wrong. They
hate having to figure out if something is a Comcast problem, a telco
problem, a Wi-Fi problem, etc.

Steve Stroh




On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 9:27 PM 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



-- 
Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his)
Editor
Zero Retries Newsletter - https://zeroretries.substack.com

[Starlink] On FiWi

[David Fernández]

Hi Bob,

If you want that FiWi infrastructure on buildings, I am afraid that
you only get it (in the long term) with a law that makes it mandatory
to make new buildings with that infrastructure for communications.

In Spain, it should be added to this:
https://avancedigital.mineco.gob.es/Infraestructuras/Paginas/Index.aspx

Regards,

David

> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 21:27:23 -0700
> From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> Cc: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>, Jeremy Austin <jeremy@aterlo.com>, Rpm
> 	<rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>, libreqos
> 	<libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Dave Taht via Starlink
> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: [Starlink] On FiWi
> Message-ID: <bc1cfdf998bb6bb246a632f0dc0fe3a8@rjmcmahon.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> 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
>

Re: [Starlink] On FiWi

[Mike Puchol]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7399 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2.1: Type: text/html, Size: 8415 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.2: Hybrid EPON-Wireless network.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 149871 bytes --]

[Starlink] On FiWi

[rjmcmahon]

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