Microsoft wants to improve internet in rural areas: High Speed Internet Over TV White Signal.

[GoodBytes]

53 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Wouldn't it be better to just invest it improving the xDSL infrastructure? That way you won't need to rely on expensive equipment at the customer nor taking up parts of the radio spectrum which could be used for other things.

To improve DSL you need fiber optics lines. That the big performance improvement, and that is the problem. Getting those lines are expensive, not to mention the equipment needed.

[GoodBytes]

37 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

How would that even work. I thought TV signals were mainly one way, as in, it gets to you, but you don't really get to interact back with it? Especially if it's over the air, I mean, your antenna isn't really made for broadcasting back over long distance no? Unless I'm missing something here.

Basically, you would have a TV broadcasting box for your upload, is what I would imagine, hence the high price tag. I would guess that downloads would be good, but uploads would be total crap. But that would be better than what is available right now for rural areas. I assume uploads to be the same or better than what they have now, but definitely not as good as urban areas.

[mr moose]

51 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Using up very valuable spectrum space for something fairly niche, expensive and that doesn't sound very good is not a good idea if you ask me.

I would rather see that spectrum go towards something with broader appeal, like 4G and 5G improvements.

 

Wouldn't it be better to just invest it improving the xDSL infrastructure? That way you won't need to rely on expensive equipment at the customer nor taking up parts of the radio spectrum which could be used for other things.

 

It would be better if the population density was sufficient to make it feasible.  This is the problem Australia has and the chief reason the NBN was doomed from the beginning.  If you live in or very close to a big city, no worries, however if you are one of the other 5 million that live in rural Australia it's either cough up an obscene amount or suffer shit internet.

 

One of my biggest bugs bears is when people compare Australia to Sth Korea, Romania or the Netherlands etc.  It's just not a fair comparison by any stretch of statistics. The US rural side of things would be very similar I'd imagine.   It may not be the best option but if it's the only feasible option then at least someone is having a go at it.

[yathis]

This is so Billy Boy can sell more of your info.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, System Error Message said:

and we've seen how much more xbox costs monthly than ps.

XBL Gold - $10/month when paid on a monthly basis, $8.33/month when paid on a quarterly basis ($25/3 months), or $5/month when paid annually ($60/12months)

PSN + - $10/month when paid monthly, $8.33/month when paid on a quarterly basis ($25/3months), or $5/month when paid annually ($60/12 months)

 

Same monthly cost. Crossplatform games cost the same. Exclusives are up to the developers, not Sony or Microsoft. The cost difference between the two consoles comes down to the upfront cost.

47 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

How would that even work. I thought TV signals were mainly one way, as in, it gets to you, but you don't really get to interact back with it? Especially if it's over the air, I mean, your antenna isn't really made for broadcasting back over long distance no? Unless I'm missing something here.

The receiver can also return signals. Either they act as high power antennae, create a mesh network, or MS intends for a higher density of low power/low cost receivers and they're just reusing 'tv' towers.

 

Concept isn't entirely new. In the Rockies, near where I live, they use the otherwise unused AM bands to achieve long range, low speed internet connectivity and telephone communication. MS' implementation just revolves around using a different spectrum and different existing equipment.

[System Error Message]

creating a network using old tv antennas was actually covered in person of interest.

 

Why cant they just lay fiber with electrical lines?

[Drak3]

Just now, System Error Message said:

creating a network using old tv antennas was actually covered in person of interest.

 

Why cant they just lay fiber with electrical lines?

Cost.

[System Error Message]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Cost.

i know i mean that fiber optics can be layed over existing infrastructure like over electrical power cables as it wont have to worry about interference rather.

I've seen ISPs run cables either using electrical or phone poles or via drainage so that just lowers the cost down to the cables and the labour for putting it.

[Drak3]

Just now, System Error Message said:

i know i mean that fiber optics can be layed over existing infrastructure like over electrical power cables as it wont have to worry about interference rather.

I've seen ISPs run cables either using electrical or phone poles or via drainage so that just lowers the cost down to the cables and the labour for putting it.

Fiber costs a significant amount, enough that it simply isn't feasible to stretch miles of it to rural areas for a handful of customers.

[System Error Message]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Fiber costs a significant amount, enough that it simply isn't feasible to stretch miles of it to rural areas for a handful of customers.

If you mean the backbone from the area to the main grid or exchange, fiber optics can be layed at the last mile over existing infrastructure like drains and poles. The fiber optic cables themselves now arent more expensive than regular ethernet (talking about the old style dual fiber links). Connection from the exchange to the main network can be either through a single fiber optic connection (lower cost with equipment and cabling).

 

Regardless of whats used at the last mile, it still needs to be connected to the main network or backbones and usually that is done via fiber optics.

 

100M fiber links are cheap nowadays, i've glanced over the cable pricing. With ISPs the most expensive bit other than staff is the hardware at the exchange and not the cables. Not only do you need a server for accounts and PPP but also DSL gear itself would cost what most of us consider to be very expensive (thousands). cabling itself is cheap and i doubt ISPs want to use the hackish and cheap way of using fiber to ethernet converters, a regular ethernet switch and SFP with fiber module to server and backbone

[BuckGup]

Your telling me I can get 25Mb/s from technology that was never intended to be used as internet that is double the age of internet and it would be more cost effective? Century Link honestly go obliterate your brains out you stupid apes. Not only do I get >1Mb/s but I don't even get cellphone service! WAIT did you know I live where the super computer was invented. I'm glad century link is the only ISP that I can choose from and makes 17.9 Billions dollars a year. THANKS MS for once

[System Error Message]

im not complaining that MS is using existing infrastructure to deliver better internet, only that a better solution could be used that isnt industry standard. 

[Eaglerino]

6 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Is it affordable however?

It's $100 a month

[System Error Message]

1 minute ago, Eaglerino said:

It's $100 a month

$100 a month for 1Mb/s? thats too expensive.

 

its like ISPs think everyone should pay them around that amount per month regardless for bandwidth.

[GoodBytes]

11 minutes ago, System Error Message said:

If you mean the backbone from the area to the main grid or exchange, fiber optics can be layed at the last mile over existing infrastructure like drains and poles. The fiber optic cables themselves now arent more expensive than regular ethernet (talking about the old style dual fiber links). Connection from the exchange to the main network can be either through a single fiber optic connection (lower cost with equipment and cabling).

 

Regardless of whats used at the last mile, it still needs to be connected to the main network or backbones and usually that is done via fiber optics.

 

100M fiber links are cheap nowadays, i've glanced over the cable pricing. With ISPs the most expensive bit other than staff is the hardware at the exchange and not the cables. Not only do you need a server for accounts and PPP but also DSL gear itself would cost what most of us consider to be very expensive (thousands). cabling itself is cheap and i doubt ISPs want to use the hackish and cheap way of using fiber to ethernet converters, a regular ethernet switch and SFP with fiber module to server and backbone

No you don't understand. The fiber cables used for the outside is very costly. Its not your little home user fiber line like an audio optical cable. You have different grades of fiber optics which different ranges, and you need relay equipment, routers/switch needs to be updated, and the boxes for the "last mile"be updated. Not to mention the labor cost, and other governmental fees (permits, etc.) Not to mention systems in place to know where a cable is cut to go and fix it, and maintenance.

 

Already, when an ISP build such network in an urban area they don't get immediate profit from their investment, it takes several years. Now in rural they pay not only a higher price, but it is not enough to cover fiber in the next 5 years... so imagine needing to wait potentially 7 years before you start making a bit of profit... and that is assuming that no lines break. Some areas got lucky, where once rural, an increase in population has helped justify such high cost.

 

Rural internet is not about "ISP too cheap" or "lack of competition", etc. It is serious limitation. Else you would have co-ops, and startups who could go big by providing internet to all rural areas, and become huge. Anything done in rural areas, including when phone lines where first installed, requires SERIOUS governmental funding. Heck most, if not, all rural areas don't even have a sewer system. They use septic tanks. They are lucky enough to have running water and electricity

[GoodBytes]

32 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Your telling me I can get 25Mb/s from technology that was never intended to be used as internet that is double the age of internet and it would be more cost effective? Century Link honestly go obliterate your brains out you stupid apes. Not only do I get >1Mb/s but I don't even get cellphone service! WAIT did you know I live where the super computer was invented. I'm glad century link is the only ISP that I can choose from and makes 17.9 Billions dollars a year. THANKS MS for once

Well.. it required:

1. The idea
2. Over the air digital TV signal.

[Eaglerino]

22 minutes ago, System Error Message said:

$100 a month for 1Mb/s? thats too expensive.

 

its like ISPs think everyone should pay them around that amount per month regardless for bandwidth.

What no gigabit per second is 125MB/s. No contracts or data caps either with MidCo

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

No you don't understand. The fiber cables used for the outside is very costly. Its not your little home user fiber line like an audio optical cable. You have different grades of fiber optics which different ranges, and you need relay equipment, routers/switch needs to be updated, and the boxes for the "last mile"be updated. Not to mention the labor cost, and other governmental fees (permits, etc.) Not to mention systems in place to know where a cable is cut to go and fix it, and maintenance.

 

Already, when an ISP build such network in an urban area they don't get immediate profit from their investment, it takes several years. Now in rural they pay not only a higher price, but it is not enough to cover fiber in the next 5 years... so imagine needing to wait potentially 7 years before you start making a bit of profit... and that is assuming that no lines break. Some areas got lucky, where once rural, an increase in population has helped justify such high cost.

 

Rural internet is not about "ISP too cheap" or "lack of competition", etc. It is serious limitation. Else you would have co-ops, and startups who could go big by providing internet to all rural areas, and become huge. Anything done in rural areas, including when phone lines where first installed, requires SERIOUS governmental funding. Heck most, if not, all rural areas don't even have a sewer system. They use septic tanks. They are lucky enough to have running water and electricity

Up to 80% of the cost of laying fiber has to do with civil engineering. Those costs will be next to non-existing for rural areas since you don't have to dig up miles upon miles of road and disrupting a lot of traffic. 

So you can take the estimated cost of laying down fiber, and then remove about 70% of that cost, and then you will have a decent estimate of how much it will cost for rural areas. 

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-434_en.htm?locale=en

 

I'm not saying laying fiber is cost efficient for rural areas... But that's how we are solving the problem in Sweden (even for small towns with less than 1000 inhabitants). 

 

I just don't see the point of doing this half measure where you invest a ton of money into this but don't use a proper solution. This not only relies on precious radio spectrum (something that we are extremely short on) but since it's long distance wireless it will be sensitive to things sushi as weather conditions, and just being shit in general. 

I think it's best to do things properly to begin with, even if it will cost slightly more (hard to tell how much more). 

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think it's best to do things properly to begin with, even if it will cost slightly more (hard to tell how much more). 

I agree, but like everything else, it comes down to feasibility,  who's going to pay for it if it presents real danger of making a loss. The institution with money that can afford a loss for a community service is government and even they have to win votes.

[Tellos]

@GoodBytes You cna do simmialr speeds with copper using DOCIS I know my company I work for uses it. Trouble is it requires amplihers to keep thwe signal goign past certain distances. Fiberl iens are backbone and until later when the new fiber deep system rolls in will continue to be an issue. As to wireless via those channels....you realize liek wifi radio signals digital or otherwise get inhterfearance right? So speeds and pign will very jsut asm uch depending on mountains or weather or anything else that may cause na issue. Competeting channels can do it and so can other radio signals.

[captain_to_fire]

3 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Rural internet is not about "ISP too cheap" or "lack of competition", etc. It is serious limitation. Else you would have co-ops, and startups who could go big by providing internet to all rural areas, and become huge. Anything done in rural areas, including when phone lines where first installed, requires SERIOUS governmental funding. Heck most, if not, all rural areas don't even have a sewer system. They use septic tanks. They are lucky enough to have running water and electricity

This reminds me back when DSL or Fiber is not yet available at my parents house which is located in a rural area. Satellite internet can compete with DSL when it comes to speed but satellite can't compete when it comes to keeping latency low. Good thing my wireless carrier offered wireless internet by using 2500 MHz TD-LTE so I signed them up. To expand the coverage further, they've added femtocells. I think it's more difficult to deploy copper or even fiber on areas high in altitude like mountains that's why ISPs have to rely on existing spectrum and repurposing it. And from experience, wireless internet often comes with data caps unlike wired internet like DSL, cable or fiber that is often unlimited data. 

 

 

[Arika]

if it works, thats pretty badass

[Ithanul]

9 hours ago, d3sl91 said:

Good luck on your test (KE7DUX here). 

 

Looking at the 600MHz bandplan, they have less than 17MHz bandwidth to work with. Most of the rest is used by the new 600MHz cellular systems. 

Ah, interesting.  That even greater than the commercial video broadcast of 6MHz bandwidth.  I can probably see them actually pulling off the speeds depending how they setup the stations.

 

Still far from taking the test (on chapter 3 of ARRL book).  Taking my time to understand all this material.

7 hours ago, TetraSky said:

How would that even work. I thought TV signals were mainly one way, as in, it gets to you, but you don't really get to interact back with it? Especially if it's over the air, I mean, your antenna isn't really made for broadcasting back over long distance no? Unless I'm missing something here.

Internet can work across radio waves.  Ham Radio does it (have not got far into that side of my studying yet).  Also, in the military, we got these awesome little stacks that if all other ISP and cable internet is lost, we can push messaging, email, and even video across our radios.  Though, that not even huge stacks, but push some serious power.  Heck, we got these neat point-to-point bridge antenna that hook right up to our network.  No wires to lay out (thank god).  So, no worry about someone trying to cut wires or running over the things with heavy trucks.

[The Benjamins]

10 hours ago, System Error Message said:

i know i mean that fiber optics can be layed over existing infrastructure like over electrical power cables as it wont have to worry about interference rather.

I've seen ISPs run cables either using electrical or phone poles or via drainage so that just lowers the cost down to the cables and the labour for putting it.

I work for a engineering company that does designs for underground eletric line replacement jobs. it cost between $2000-$6000 to replace a underground service line from a near by transformer.

 

so to add in fiber lines is going to cost a lot.

[Taf the Ghost]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

It would be better if the population density was sufficient to make it feasible.  This is the problem Australia has and the chief reason the NBN was doomed from the beginning.  If you live in or very close to a big city, no worries, however if you are one of the other 5 million that live in rural Australia it's either cough up an obscene amount or suffer shit internet.

 

One of my biggest bugs bears is when people compare Australia to Sth Korea, Romania or the Netherlands etc.  It's just not a fair comparison by any stretch of statistics. The US rural side of things would be very similar I'd imagine.   It may not be the best option but if it's the only feasible option then at least someone is having a go at it.

It's the exact same issue. The "the USA has terrible internet!" arguments is always one of those sort of hilarious ones, because it's actually made by ignorant Europeans, mostly. (And they really hate when you point out they're just being ignorant.) High-speed Internet is very infrastructure intensive.  When you have significant chunks of the country with under 5 ppl per sq km, there's just no way to square the cost to build out the systems.  Over time, you can, but you need measures to fit in between.  

 

MS's idea is actually pretty good, especially if it gets the costs down. Then it opens up further roll outs in other parts of the world. (Using gaps in the market in the West for R&D recovery is a pretty classic tech approach; a good win-win for everyone.)