From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (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 82DE63CB37 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 12:54:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id y184so4244816oiy.8 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 09:54:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1679072082; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RJnq7+EMrkmAabiQBX4AVfiC978f9oVpTjxx14NM+RA=; b=i7kthVLxXK/l5e51ScCyVHPuRDlWsKeRmXIo3PVlC+0nM8Zbs+dHhXZpCAq8wSlI81 iiTQ1LLBzWpQ01dsXFSAlzn3wVBZcSSFT+20wLtdxryGok/57hzwP2WVTavjNSKYjl9n 7Jiv0XQvyuQbkCCxuxlYUG3qvpwOEeDEqc/ldg7LKxwsvS4TxZ2UDPNZ2Xb0WnVKVaT5 ZYniz4+/CsEgHaqumDuPjrqzdfBs1Nn0tj7dbVRVmAYCqZKEZlshV0O9BEazU3WxLdDM 9VOItZLT3S5y2cDZc/NSZTalDwqNCtBjSjqi6zjqm7erEIjfRE7tPpsgOEVPjVsNwgxy oGYQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1679072082; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=RJnq7+EMrkmAabiQBX4AVfiC978f9oVpTjxx14NM+RA=; b=yXew1220ZJ5mVZkVxvIYZKxSz1vtVdif0rZPX8VD4M0zQ4+draLRF2IhL88/NEEbdy cNEx2BWoVJ/phsyDFXq6uYzzb5hXR9fDB2CMcMSBDVkK5Qw1TTEGe4TmFPqaajvIuxm8 b0OviA30/G4Lupi2/qIoyxV5FEmzNaMtNIgnFy53RCXpg7WWhkt8TRMqNO4o+Kp9BaH+ yXt+QvfUBieAc0kuXvpk8t67KRJmjCmDbxeCj8bd9WGfXwrF99jB92quJuUdRdqLA9DZ wzHicFT7dGV8bekyg9isYwEWaL/WJt4DYSqhdAKdoriZ5UNiT60YHqXEIzv4aT6vUDkT jGyA== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKX8/Ht1PFh2aBCvr4lFVtyUBHOlPvoER08/4QWezC/F9g4AzJec /9XDojMGgjXTFaB2XlygUN6tmCsWgOhs7v/KpafAIUT+FYU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/Y4Y6hhJNas0WAElAwnv3QNXiWQiYZ4t/gCEyBO8XoFedYQldkO5Vxl1EnKTYyms9hinXUUDyX0lu1Uo7PA5M= X-Received: by 2002:aca:d06:0:b0:384:34c4:db1d with SMTP id 6-20020aca0d06000000b0038434c4db1dmr3158219oin.1.1679072082503; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 09:54:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:6358:63a4:b0:104:67b2:1e1a with HTTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 09:54:42 -0700 (PDT) From: =?UTF-8?Q?David_Fern=C3=A1ndez?= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:54:42 +0100 Message-ID: To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] On FiWi X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 16:54:43 -0000 Hi Dave, Telefonica achieved considerable gains in efficiency dismantling the copper network (85% gains in energy efficiency). Read here: https://www.xataka.com/empresas-y-economia/paso-cobre-adsl-a-fib= ra-ha-sido-beneficioso-para-todos-especialmente-para-telefonica Regards, David > Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 09:38:03 -0700 > From: Dave Taht > To: Mike Puchol > Cc: Dave Taht via Starlink , Rpm > , libreqos > , bloat > Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] On FiWi > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8" > > This is a pretty neat box: > > https://mikrotik.com/product/netpower_lite_7r > > What are the compelling arguments for fiber vs copper, again? > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:10=E2=80=AFAM Mike Puchol via Rpm < > rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >> Hi Bob, >> >> You hit on a set of very valid points, which I'll complement with my vie= ws >> 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, an= d >> 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 fe= e >> if they don't return equipment, the economics work. >> >> Where currently a ~$500 sector radio could serve ~60 endpoints, at a cos= t >> 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 fo= r >> ~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 i= s >> $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 t= he >> 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 capaci= ty >> for 64 ONUs on its single port. Instead of connecting the typical fiber >> infrastructure with kilometers of cables which break, require maintenanc= e, >> 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 involve= s >> a >> 100 meter roll of pre-connectorized 2-core drop cable, and a $20 EPON ON= U. >> >> 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. Ad= d >> 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-eve= n >> 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, i= s >> 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 ON= U >> 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 nee= ds >> to account for this, or an new hybrid EPON-wireless protocol developed. >> >> My main point here: the industry is moving away from the unconnected. Al= l >> 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) =E2=80=9CCopper cables and PCB traces are very frequency dependent. A= t >> 100Gb/s, the loss is in dB/inch." >> o) "Free space: the power density of the radio waves decreases with the >> square of distance from the transmitting antenna due to spreading of the >> electromagnetic energy in space according to the inverse square law" >> >> The sunk costs & long-lived parts of FiWi are the fiber and the CPE >> plastics & antennas, as CMOS radios+ & fiber/laser, e.g. VCSEL could be >> pluggable, allowing for field upgrades. Just like swapping out SFP in a >> data center. >> >> This approach basically drives out WiFi latency by eliminating shared >> queues and increases capacity by orders of magnitude by leveraging 10dB >> in the spatial dimension, all of which is achieved by a physical design. >> Just place enough RRHs as needed (similar to a pop up sprinkler in an >> irrigation system.) >> >> Start and build this for an MDU and the value of the building improves. >> Sadly, there seems no way to capture that value other than over long >> term use. It doesn't matter whether the leader of the HOA tries to >> capture the value or if a last mile provider tries. The value remains >> sunk or hidden with nothing on the asset side of the balance sheet. >> We've got a CAPEX spend that has to be made up via "OPEX returns" over >> years. >> >> But the asset is there. >> >> How do we do this? >> >> Bob >> _______________________________________________ >> Starlink mailing list >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rpm mailing list >> Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm >> > > > -- > Come Heckle Mar 6-9 at: https://www.understandinglatency.com > / > Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: Hybrid EPON-Wireless network.png > Type: image/png > Size: 149871 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Starlink Digest, Vol 24, Issue 39 > **************************************** >