Fibre versus Wireless Broadband

[rpm]

Fibre versus Wireless

We are unlikely to see the widespread availability of fibre based broadband access anytime soon - but do we really need it with the prevalence of faster wireless access?

[ads]

Well, Vodafone would say that, wouldn't they? I wonder if red wireless is also better than any other colour...

Seriously, though, comparing the peak throughput of a wireless basestation (which is many times more than what the average user ever actually sees for newer technologies) and the speed of a fibre serving one customer, gives completely the wrong impression. There are certainly similarities in the core network, where any amount of contention can be built into either a wireless or a fibre network, but, for access, there are fundamental differences in the amount of sharing, and hence the actual throughput that is possible.

Actually delivering these speeds is much more complex. In order to maintain the speeds promised by 4G technologies as networks saturate (in other words, to minimise the reduction in speed as a result of the sharing that's going on), it is necessary to build basestations closer and closer together (assuming enough spectrum and the right technology). All of these basestations need fibre backhaul. At the limit, you have a set of hotspots (picocells, to use the fancy term) that are little more than fibre terminations with a small radio on them - basically what you get with a fibre network and wifi today.

In the end, it's not a question of whether to use fibre or wireless, but how to use both of them together properly.

[stricken]

very interesting. i still puke when i have to pay R250 for 1.2Gb. Its not the pirates that took money away from the Content industry, Its the NETWORKS.

[stricken]

as in... im sorry Warner Brothers... but after paying R500 to download your movie, unfortunately i dont even have R50 left to pay for the actual content.

[stricken]

and you could say building networks cost money. well yes they do. about a 100th of what it actually costs to support shareholders, big paychecks and lavish working environments.

[stricken]

but alas... this too shall pass... and like free to air TV, in 20 years, there will be free to air broadband (maybe not the fastest but definitely still broadband)

[stricken]

so until then i shall hang up my trolling hat, and pat myself on the shoulder for hitting 801 posts.

[Hannes]

All of these basestations need fibre backhaul. At the limit, you have a set of hotspots (picocells, to use the fancy term) that are little more than fibre terminations with a small radio on them - basically what you get with a fibre network and wifi today.

In the end, it's not a question of whether to use fibre or wireless, but how to use both of them together properly.

As a South African living in Dubai I have become spoilt the past year with Fibre to the Home - even though in terms of FTTH performance, my 30MBps is quite poor (Even though I consistently for hours on end can run at 29.5Mbps download). On top of that I get my Video on Demand and 2 concurrent HD channels comes through fibre as well, most probably adding another 8Mbps overhead. But then, so does it for the other 3000 villas in my estate of 3 sqkm as well. Even if you oversubscribe 1:20 you still need almost 2Gbps/sqkm to replicate such a service wireless. There is NO way that LTE, even LTE Advanced will deliver this over a wide area. The compounding problem is that applications get developed in the 1st world where fibre and ADSL is abundant. We in 3rd world countries cannot replicate the experience wireless any longer.

With the Germans recently proving 26Tb/s, fibre is several orders of magnitude above any wireless technology out there (and this will evolve along with other OFDM etc technologies as well, to increase the speeds even further)... The offset between wireless and fibre/cable will ALWAYS exist, so by the time we can do 1-2 Gbps/sqkm on LTE Advanced or its then Big big Papa, FTTH will provide 100 times that (and people will WANT that wireless as well)...Business case killer.

[g-d-zilla]

If "wireless" access was cheaper and faster than fibre-based ADSL I would certainly go for it, but since I'm online all day, every day, I doubt it will be cheaper. So I will stick to ADSL if only it was faster!

[saffakanera]

I think WIFI and Fiber are both in their technological infancy really. If I had to put stock on any technology, it ultimately would be wireless, in 20 years from now, we would laugh talking about the days we had "HDMI" cables and power cables running all over the place.

[TJ99]

Of course wireless is more affordable, for Vodacom, not us. Proper internet connections are cheap and fast, while with cellphone networks they can charge insane rates per MB and even more insane rates when you go outside your tiny little "bundle".

It also gives them a free pass to claim 42 or 100 or a million MBps connections, but not telling you that your actual speeds wil very rarely go above 1Mbps because you're sharing it with a few hundred/thousand people.

In fact, on a 3G dongle on my laptop I hardly ever get above 1 KB per second from about 11:00 to 16:00, when the networks are busy, from Vodacom and MTN. Frequently websites will just time out entirely.

Also there's the high latency to consider, the only thing that works (semi-) decently for playing games is a good old direct, fixed connection.

[jmak]

Well, Vodafone would say that, wouldn't they? I wonder if red wireless is also better than any other colour...

Seriously, though, comparing the peak throughput of a wireless basestation (which is many times more than what the average user ever actually sees for newer technologies) and the speed of a fibre serving one customer, gives completely the wrong impression. There are certainly similarities in the core network, where any amount of contention can be built into either a wireless or a fibre network, but, for access, there are fundamental differences in the amount of sharing, and hence the actual throughput that is possible.

Actually delivering these speeds is much more complex. In order to maintain the speeds promised by 4G technologies as networks saturate (in other words, to minimise the reduction in speed as a result of the sharing that's going on), it is necessary to build basestations closer and closer together (assuming enough spectrum and the right technology). All of these basestations need fibre backhaul. At the limit, you have a set of hotspots (picocells, to use the fancy term) that are little more than fibre terminations with a small radio on them - basically what you get with a fibre network and wifi today.

In the end, it's not a question of whether to use fibre or wireless, but how to use both of them together properly.

Second that.

[IMWise]

Well, Vodafone would say that, wouldn't they? I wonder if red wireless is also better than any other colour...

Seriously, though, comparing the peak throughput of a wireless basestation (which is many times more than what the average user ever actually sees for newer technologies) and the speed of a fibre serving one customer, gives completely the wrong impression. There are certainly similarities in the core network, where any amount of contention can be built into either a wireless or a fibre network, but, for access, there are fundamental differences in the amount of sharing, and hence the actual throughput that is possible.

Actually delivering these speeds is much more complex. In order to maintain the speeds promised by 4G technologies as networks saturate (in other words, to minimise the reduction in speed as a result of the sharing that's going on), it is necessary to build basestations closer and closer together (assuming enough spectrum and the right technology). All of these basestations need fibre backhaul. At the limit, you have a set of hotspots (picocells, to use the fancy term) that are little more than fibre terminations with a small radio on them - basically what you get with a fibre network and wifi today.

In the end, it's not a question of whether to use fibre or wireless, but how to use both of them together properly.

I concur!

[GerhardL]

A wireless company advocating wireless as the only way to go probably carries as much integrity as a fibre company saying that fibre is the only way to go. There's space for both.

I also find the timing of this interesting with the World Health Organization due to release a report on wireless and it's link to cancer at the end of this month.

[zamicro]

Why not add the cost of copper to the article? That would make for interesting reading.