[wsfii-discuss] Fw: public demand for information technology

[Ken DiPietro]

Ramon Roca wrote:
> Ups! Big differences between points of view here, that's always good 
> for a debate, also inline:

And this is how we learn. I try to participate on these lists because 
they are a wealth of knowledge and I try to help whenever I can.

> I mean spaces where neutrality is preserved, free spectrum not invaded 
> by not neutral networks. I can't imagine either in short or mid term 
> all the spectrum being free.

This is something that every governing body needs to make the decision 
on based on what they believe is best. If you are willing to take a look 
into one possible future, please consider what information could not be 
carried over a wireless link if the entire spectrum was opened up for 
these expressed purposes. Seriously, radio, television (or video of all 
kinds) telephone (or voice communication with video communications as 
well) because if it can be digitized it can be carried over a wireless link.

>> I am sorry, you are wrong. Currently, I know of several companies 
>> indifferent stages of building radios that provide well above 100Mbps 
>> (with one claiming real data rates of 300Mbps on the backhaul end 
>> while having the capability to provide an aggregate of over 100Mbps 
>> on the distribution side) which when deployed on every block could 
>> handle thousands of concurrent VoIP sessions while still leaving room 
>> for data and possibly even video - if the video is of a low 
>> definition variety such as You Tube or Google Video provide and 
>> cached locally.
> If that's really true and available today, pls. give details on this. 
> Note that we will be very thankful if you share that knowledge: Myself 
> and probably many others can't achieve those bandwidths in the real 
> world in wireless communications today without combining several 
> frequencies, and even worst, if large scale of clients have 
> simultaneous traffic in a common frequency, that creates a noise 
> between all of them.
> If it's not available, we are mixing present and future here, 
> therefore hyping.

Okay, I have to be careful because I am under NDAs to a few companies 
but speaking strictly on a basis of what is theoretically possible, 
using the Atheors chipset based radios and a program like Mikrotik 40Mhz 
wide channels can be bonded together in the 5GHz band that will provide 
70Mbps (real throughput - with no compression) per channel. If you now 
take two (or more) of these channels and "bond" them (this can be easily 
accomplished using load balancing)  depending on where you are located 
(and the regulations that apply) you can build radios that are capable 
of well over 100Mbps real throughput.

This also requires a different mindset when it comes to deployment as we 
now need to think in ranges that allow for the maximum connection speed 
but in metropolitan environments short range links are not only what's 
needed but it is the only way spectrum can be reused repeatedly allowing 
for these kinds of networks to be build without destroying the 
spectrum's usability.

If we look at the newest 802.11n (Draft) we can see real throughputs of 
well above 100Mbps but a large portion of the 2.4GHz band is utilized. 
This does not preclude the building of ultra high speed communications 
networks, far from it, but it does mean a very different mindset needs 
to be employed.

> Ummmm... not sure If I explained well. Of course we have to buy 
> things, if there is a local retailer with low margins, we'll do, if 
> not, you can buy in China, Latvia, or wherever you want. Supply Chain 
> is not the biggest issue here today, as long as there is a 
> manufacturer who produces in an enough large scale to provide this 
> technology at reasonable prices. I assume that the manufacturer should 
> exists, if not, that means the technology is not available, therefore 
> all of this become just empty words.

If you are interested, I can supply links.

> I simply don't like enterprises who don't provide a real service with 
> value add, they trend to become parasites. All others, whit ethic 
> business models, and respectful to network neutrality rules are  very 
> welcome.

Understood, I believe we are in very close agreement here. It is the 
value of the business model and what its goals are that is the most 
important underlying thing to consider.

> If you consider that the academic/technical entities such the CERN and 
> a few relevant Corporations, Universities and Foundations as 
> governmental agencies, maybe yes, but if we mean governments as 
> politics / legislators, I would say that no.  Internet was also a 
> surprise for them. Traditionally politics and legislators are behind 
> the innovation, and in fact introduced the risks of being influenced 
> by lobbies or over-legislating.

Agreed.

> I believe that you misunderstanding my point here or taking it out of 
> context. Let me try to show it in another way: Are you running either 
> a community or a large customer base? If yes, how large? You'll be 
> always limited by your own resources and capabilities. Nobody is magic 
> / ubiquitous.

Hmm, I am not sure how to address your point. Let me ask you a question 
to clarify what you are saying. Do you believe a citywide wireless 
infrastructure can be built that could handle all of the telephone needs 
(VoIP) as well as data and video?
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-22-2006/0004286765&EDATE=

I will come right out and say this directly. You will see the 
introduction of 100Mbps plus (backhaul of over 100Mbps full duplex and 
end user delivery at whereever you would wish) equipment in early 2007. 
This is three times as fast as what Strix deployed as described in the 
above press release. Anything more than that I would need to ask you (or 
anyone else) to contact me directly (off-list) and I will provide you 
with further information

> I was not talking about if the competition is good or bad or how much 
> centralized/decentralized has to be. Anyway for sure network 
> neutrality has to be somewhat organized, and never centralized.

I am not sure I agree but I would agree that both models can work if 
they are engineered correctly.

> I certainly pay my taxes. I can't discuss this, I'm not an expert in 
> how they have applied. I just have difficulties in seeing how another 
> tax can help here.

Would you pay $5/radio if you were allowed a wide slice of protected 
spectrum? Let's say we offered the government of [pick a friendly 
county] a one time fee of $5/radio if they gave us 100Mhz of prime 
spectrum. In fact, we would like to suggest that they make (20) 100Mhz 
slices of spectrum each of which we would pay $5/radio when we purchase 
equipment for use in that one slice of spectrum. We would have to 
convincingly explain to them that if they charged us more we would have 
to pass that cost on to the customer and everyone would lose out. 
Perhaps we could employ Mahabir as our spokesperson, he seems to be 
really good at this. <grin>

By the way, I live for this kind of discussion. I believe we can make a 
difference and that different ideas need to be discussed and exchanged. 
Thanks for being open minded in this process.

Respectfully,

Ken DiPietro

New-ISP.net/NextGenCommunications.net
Wireless solutions - not concessions.
http://www.nextgencommunications.net
1044 National Highway LaVale MD 21502
Tel# (301)789-2968 Cell (301)268-1154

---
---