The ISP could charge per radio head and manage the system from a FiWi head end which they own. Virtualize the APs. Get rid of SoC complexity and costly O&M via simplicity. Eliminate all the incremental engineering that has gone astray, e.g. bloat and over powered APs.
Bob On Mar 14, 2023, 9:49 AM, at 9:49 AM, Robert McMahon <rjmcma...@rjmcmahon.com> wrote: >Hi Mike, > >I'm thinking more of fiber to the room. The last few meters are wifi >everything else is fiber.. Those radios would be a max of 20' from the >associated STA. Then at phy rates of 2.8Gb/s per spatial stream. The >common MIMO is 2x2 so each radio head or wifi transceiver supports >5.6G, no queueing delay. Wholesale is $5 and retail $19.95 per >pluggable transceiver. Sold at Home Depot next to the irrigation aisle. >10 per house is $199 and each room gets a dedicated 5.8G phy rate. Need >more devices in a space? Pick an RRH with more cmos radios. Also, the >antennas would be patch antenna and fill the room properly. Then plug >in an optional sensor for fire alerting. > > >A digression. A lot of signal processing engineers have been working on >TX beam forming. The best beam is fiber. Just do that. It even can turn >corners and goes exactly to where it's needed at very low energies. >This is similar to pvc pipes in irrigation systems. They're designed to >take water to spray heads. > >The cost is the cable plant. That's labor more than materials. Similar >for irrigation, pvc is inexpensive and lasts decades. A return labor >means use future proof materials, e.g. fiber. > >Bob > > > >On Mar 14, 2023, 4:10 AM, at 4:10 AM, Mike Puchol via Rpm ><r...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >>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 >><starl...@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 >>> starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
_______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat