8 ms·

When is a high tech Silicon Valley company going to pop up providing high internet speeds through wifi or data signal? Would be a booming startup for sure. Ver

by jcavin 12y ago

When is a high tech Silicon Valley company going to pop up providing high internet speeds through wifi or data signal? Would be a booming startup for sure. Very surprised google has not taken this one on. I hate being forced to have only once choice for internet (cox). You know that there is not much of incentive for them to do a good job when they have no competition!!!!

LandoCalrissian 12y ago
A great idea to be sure, but I think the capital costs at the beginning would be really tough. If they are going to make their own data network they at least need to buy spectrum, which is insanely expensive (high millions to low billions).
- jessaustin 12y ago
  The requirement to buy spectrum is what has kept the lid on radio network innovation. With appropriate technology, spectrum would not need to be ransomed by the agency that the incumbents own. We've seen rapid progress at 2.4 and 5 ghz, the unlicensed (i.e. free) nature of which may be the single greatest legacy of the microwave oven. If only the FCC would quit dragging its feet on white spaces and similar radio tech possibilities, and do what it promised to do a decade ago, we'd soon see similar progress at frequencies that accommodate longer ranges. This would create serious competitors to the broadband monopolists.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    You've seen rapid progress at 2.4gh and 5ghz because the FCC keeps power limits really low. If I were allowed to blast my signal all over my town, we'd all be interfering with each other left and right.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      We keep hearing that, but when the FCC and similar entities have actually tested it they've found it not to be the case. It's not the 1930s anymore.
wmf 12y ago
If you're satisfied with LTE you already have four choices for that. Most people don't believe that wireless can ever be a substitute for wired broadband.
jlawer 12y ago
4G speeds is pretty much the state of the art in production ready systems. While there is a lot of speed available on LTE, once it is shared across a reasonable number of people the performance drops. This is why bandwidth caps are so tight on mobile networks, they can't have all their subscribers pulling 200gb of data a month, else everyone is going to get DSL 1 speeds. This problem is a fundamental issue of RF Spectrum, and these problems tend to be addressed by blue sky research that occurs at a university. Google is trying to address this in the most cost effective manner possible... google fibre. Wireless is unlikely to be any cheaper then simply rolling fibre / copper to every home.
- runeks 12y ago
  I think it may have a lot to do with regulation. I've been looking around, to see whether I could find information on the total bandwidth of the DVB-T(2) spectrum for some country, but I couldn't. I want to know because I'm wondering if, perhaps, the technical abilities are there, but we can't use them because only a select, small set of frequencies are allowed for data transfer. I'm still not sure whether that's the case though.
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    It has nothing to do with regulation, it has to do with physics. Wireless is not nearly as good a communication channel as fiber or cable. Intuitively this is because of interference with other signals, reflections and obstructions, all of which are continuously changing.
    - wtallis 12y ago
      It's also due to the fact that there's only a few GHz of spectrum in which cheap equipment can broadcast a powerful enough signal to go any useful distance. WiFi operating in 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz are tricky but not impossible to use for anything longer-range than a single building. Much higher frequency, and you have to use pretty powerful transmitters and well-aimed highly directional antennas. Current tech allows for a few bits/s/Hz, so there's only a few gbit/s of bandwidth to be allocated between all long-range communication uses. If you want to offer gigabit speeds to households over wireless, you have to deploy a mesh network that's so dense it would be cheaper to just lay fiber.
rayiner 12y ago
> Would be a booming startup for sure. What makes you think that? Anecdote: I live in a new building in Baltimore, and have both Comcast cable and Verizon FiOS. The FiOS is an MDU, so instead of fiber to each apartment we get fiber to an ONT on each floor, and VDSL to each unit. Still, it's rock solid 45/15 all times of day for $50/month. The other day, I lost internet. Called Verizon, they said it must be a problem with my unit because nobody else in the building had complained. Verizon tech comes out, and realizes that the reason nobody has complained is that I'm the only one on the ONT. Indeed, the ONT wasn't even properly configured with the network, and nobody had noticed because I was the first person on the floor to subscribe to the service since the building was built in 2011. We're talking about a building with dozens of apartments on each floor, by the way. The moral of the story is that people care about their internet connection a lot less than folks on HN would like to believe. Verizon is still pushing hard to recoup its investment in FiOS, because customers aren't willing to pay what it costs to build all that infrastructure. Why would a startup want to enter that market?
- sanderjd 12y ago
  People definitely care about their ability to watch Netflix/Amazon Prime/HBO Go/Google Play video, but they don't care whether those companies have to pay their ISP for the privilege of reaching them, and they don't care about starting costs for hypothetical future internet businesses.
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    You only need 3 Mbit/s for Netflix. I think 6 Mbit/s for 4k.
- snuxoll 12y ago
  WE the taxpayers already paid Verizon for that infrastructure with the tax breaks we gave them for the EXPLICIT PURPOSE of deploying fiber.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    We did? Best source for that?
foobarqux 12y ago
You cannot get fiber (or even cable) speeds on wireless.
SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
Google is working on it: http://www.tarborotimes.com/2014/04/26/weird-news-google-buys-a-drone-company/ http://www.tarborotimes.com/2014/04/26/weird-news-google-buy... Current experiments are putting the performance at the 3G level, but it seems likely only a matter of time before these have LTE or better.
diafygi 12y ago
What are everyone's thoughts on pCells[1]? [1] - https://youtube.com/watch?v=wGAnDQEQJ_s https://youtube.com/watch?v=wGAnDQEQJ_s
- wmf 12y ago
  We need at least something like a factor of ten improvement over LTE for wireless to compete with wired. I don't know if Artemis can provide that.
  - spyder 12y ago
    They claim they solved the problem of the overcrowded wireless networks. And it can improve the existing technologies like LTE, 3G and WiFi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eMBBVG-MNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eMBBVG-MNY
bcoates 12y ago
Terrestrial fixed wireless is commonplace in the US. Prices generally start at a few hundred dollars a month, speeds from ones to hundreds of Mbps. There is competition to Cable and DSL for Internet access, but most operators avoid the low-margin retail space they operate in.
fragmede 12y ago
It exists, but has only limited availability - WebPass (no affiliation other than a satisfied customer) provides 100/200 Mbit service to select buildings in the SF Bay area, for $45/month. As far as I've been able to find out, their backhaul is some sort of wireless link to their NOC.

by jcavin 12y ago

LandoCalrissian 12y ago

A great idea to be sure, but I think the capital costs at the beginning would be really tough. If they are going to make their own data network they at least need to buy spectrum, which is insanely expensive (high millions to low billions).

jessaustin 12y ago
The requirement to buy spectrum is what has kept the lid on radio network innovation. With appropriate technology, spectrum would not need to be ransomed by the agency that the incumbents own. We've seen rapid progress at 2.4 and 5 ghz, the unlicensed (i.e. free) nature of which may be the single greatest legacy of the microwave oven. If only the FCC would quit dragging its feet on white spaces and similar radio tech possibilities, and do what it promised to do a decade ago, we'd soon see similar progress at frequencies that accommodate longer ranges. This would create serious competitors to the broadband monopolists.
- rhino369 12y ago
  You've seen rapid progress at 2.4gh and 5ghz because the FCC keeps power limits really low. If I were allowed to blast my signal all over my town, we'd all be interfering with each other left and right.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    We keep hearing that, but when the FCC and similar entities have actually tested it they've found it not to be the case. It's not the 1930s anymore.

wmf 12y ago

If you're satisfied with LTE you already have four choices for that. Most people don't believe that wireless can ever be a substitute for wired broadband.

jlawer 12y ago

4G speeds is pretty much the state of the art in production ready systems. While there is a lot of speed available on LTE, once it is shared across a reasonable number of people the performance drops. This is why bandwidth caps are so tight on mobile networks, they can't have all their subscribers pulling 200gb of data a month, else everyone is going to get DSL 1 speeds. This problem is a fundamental issue of RF Spectrum, and these problems tend to be addressed by blue sky research that occurs at a university. Google is trying to address this in the most cost effective manner possible... google fibre. Wireless is unlikely to be any cheaper then simply rolling fibre / copper to every home.

runeks 12y ago
I think it may have a lot to do with regulation. I've been looking around, to see whether I could find information on the total bandwidth of the DVB-T(2) spectrum for some country, but I couldn't. I want to know because I'm wondering if, perhaps, the technical abilities are there, but we can't use them because only a select, small set of frequencies are allowed for data transfer. I'm still not sure whether that's the case though.
- foobarqux 12y ago
  It has nothing to do with regulation, it has to do with physics. Wireless is not nearly as good a communication channel as fiber or cable. Intuitively this is because of interference with other signals, reflections and obstructions, all of which are continuously changing.
  - wtallis 12y ago
    It's also due to the fact that there's only a few GHz of spectrum in which cheap equipment can broadcast a powerful enough signal to go any useful distance. WiFi operating in 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz are tricky but not impossible to use for anything longer-range than a single building. Much higher frequency, and you have to use pretty powerful transmitters and well-aimed highly directional antennas. Current tech allows for a few bits/s/Hz, so there's only a few gbit/s of bandwidth to be allocated between all long-range communication uses. If you want to offer gigabit speeds to households over wireless, you have to deploy a mesh network that's so dense it would be cheaper to just lay fiber.

rayiner 12y ago

> Would be a booming startup for sure. What makes you think that? Anecdote: I live in a new building in Baltimore, and have both Comcast cable and Verizon FiOS. The FiOS is an MDU, so instead of fiber to each apartment we get fiber to an ONT on each floor, and VDSL to each unit. Still, it's rock solid 45/15 all times of day for $50/month. The other day, I lost internet. Called Verizon, they said it must be a problem with my unit because nobody else in the building had complained. Verizon tech comes out, and realizes that the reason nobody has complained is that I'm the only one on the ONT. Indeed, the ONT wasn't even properly configured with the network, and nobody had noticed because I was the first person on the floor to subscribe to the service since the building was built in 2011. We're talking about a building with dozens of apartments on each floor, by the way. The moral of the story is that people care about their internet connection a lot less than folks on HN would like to believe. Verizon is still pushing hard to recoup its investment in FiOS, because customers aren't willing to pay what it costs to build all that infrastructure. Why would a startup want to enter that market?

sanderjd 12y ago
People definitely care about their ability to watch Netflix/Amazon Prime/HBO Go/Google Play video, but they don't care whether those companies have to pay their ISP for the privilege of reaching them, and they don't care about starting costs for hypothetical future internet businesses.
- foobarqux 12y ago
  You only need 3 Mbit/s for Netflix. I think 6 Mbit/s for 4k.
snuxoll 12y ago
WE the taxpayers already paid Verizon for that infrastructure with the tax breaks we gave them for the EXPLICIT PURPOSE of deploying fiber.
- tptacek 12y ago
  We did? Best source for that?

foobarqux 12y ago

You cannot get fiber (or even cable) speeds on wireless.

SomeCallMeTim 12y ago

Google is working on it: http://www.tarborotimes.com/2014/04/26/weird-news-google-buys-a-drone-company/ http://www.tarborotimes.com/2014/04/26/weird-news-google-buy... Current experiments are putting the performance at the 3G level, but it seems likely only a matter of time before these have LTE or better.

diafygi 12y ago

What are everyone's thoughts on pCells[1]? [1] - https://youtube.com/watch?v=wGAnDQEQJ_s https://youtube.com/watch?v=wGAnDQEQJ_s

wmf 12y ago
We need at least something like a factor of ten improvement over LTE for wireless to compete with wired. I don't know if Artemis can provide that.
- spyder 12y ago
  They claim they solved the problem of the overcrowded wireless networks. And it can improve the existing technologies like LTE, 3G and WiFi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eMBBVG-MNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eMBBVG-MNY

bcoates 12y ago

Terrestrial fixed wireless is commonplace in the US. Prices generally start at a few hundred dollars a month, speeds from ones to hundreds of Mbps. There is competition to Cable and DSL for Internet access, but most operators avoid the low-margin retail space they operate in.

fragmede 12y ago

It exists, but has only limited availability - WebPass (no affiliation other than a satisfied customer) provides 100/200 Mbit service to select buildings in the SF Bay area, for $45/month. As far as I've been able to find out, their backhaul is some sort of wireless link to their NOC.