Tuesday, December 16, 2014

And We Keep Making More Lawyers!

The current debate on broadband seems to be between lobbyists and lawyers. It is akin to a discussion on how to treat a cancer patient that is held between the mortician and the witch doctor. Not very beneficial to the patient, or customer.

Let me give an example. There is some lawyer whose book I reviewed a while back who is at it again. Bemoaning broadband. But she may have learned something, not too much, but something.

She states: 

Who needs fiber? Mobile wireless is the future.” This is like saying that because we have airplanes we don’t need airports. A wireless signal is just the last 50 feet of a wire; wireless and wired connections are complementary. A 20 Mbps local wireless connection — between your handset and a cell tower, say — is no good if the wire running from the tower to the core network (the “backhaul”) doesn’t have enough capacity to carry that number of bits or is having latency issues. When that wire is a fiber optic line, it can carry an enormous amount of information. To haul all our mobile wireless data back from us to the Internet, particularly when we’re uploading a ton of data, we’ll need fiber deep into the places we live, work and entertain ourselves. Fiber, the glass tubes themselves, is cheaper to maintain than copper and can be easily upgraded. And without a major change in policy in the U.S. we’re not going to have it — even as other countries take it for granted and start building the new uses and new societies that are based on ubiquitous, vanishingly cheap communications.

In reality as we have demonstrated, wireless has superb capacity. Using 4G we get 10 bps/Hz and with 20 MHz that is 200 Mbps. Not bad. 5G raises that another factor of 10. She kinda now accepts that. In her book it was missing so perhaps someone got to her. In my opinion she seemed a bit clueless. Yet we all are entitled to our opinions. But as to the backhaul, what does she think is there, copper wires. Almost all of the backhaul is fiber, it is cheaper and easier to maintain not to mention the greater bandwidth. That she recognized and so did the telcos, two decades ago. 

Now she does have a point about cable. Imagine, if you will, the cable interface. Designed almost two decades ago, still the same. A big clumsy box, when Google and Amazon have USB chips! The wireless companies have iPhones and Androids, changed out at least every year! Does anyone ever remember a cable box being upgraded? And you pay $10 per month per box!

That should be her argument, not bemoaning wireless.

Oh and by the way, that 20 Mbps is only the beginning, and the telcos want your revenue so they will make certain they can carry it, at zero marginal costs to them! That should be the concern, not digging up my lawn for a fiber connection!