I guarantee you that if they start tampering with netflix traffic there will be riots.
Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast
261–270 of 284 posts
Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't get why people think this is possible. Even with microcells and loads of spectrum, you might be able to get 2gigabit/sec of internet per cell, which would be enough for perhaps a couple hundred streams (not including all the other internet services people require all the time). Considering most cells right now serve thousands if not tens of thousands of devices, there is simply no way that wireless bro…
5G changes things dramatically. 5G deployment will be heavily focused on small cells. That means you can go to higher frequencies, because you don't care as much about propagation, and you've got much more bandwidth available at higher frequencies. So cell size goes down, users per cell goes down, and bandwidth per cell goes up. That still ends up being massively cheaper than FTTP. Getting fiber into peoples' houses…
5G might end up cheaper than FTTP, but I wouldn't get my hopes up on it being massively cheaper.
Higher frequencies will require either line of sight or very short distances to the small cell. The small cells themselves will incur costs both CAPEX and OPEX.
Basically the only part 5G will replace in a FTTP network is the drop. And that's where the density and the topography is cooperating. Whereas if you install a fiber drop, you'll be set for 20+ years and you won't have to install, maintain and power a small cell forever.
Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast
#263What would seem to make sense for Netflix would be use more HDD/SSD caching of videos, similar to how a DVR for Tivo works. There really isn't a huge reason to live stream Netflix movie/show content. It's not live video. The Netflix subscriber user could download up to 30 or 40 Netflix shows in advance from their Netflix queue (sort of like the original 'Netflix by mail' queue) over LTE at midnight under some sort of…
While technically feasible, content owners won't allow it, so it's a moot point.
Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better approach might be a government managed last mile (i.e. cable from a central data center to your home/business), but not the ISP itself. That way ISPs can continue to compete for your business, but the market would be significantly less restrictive because the ISP only needs physical equipment at the data center and upstream of it. The biggest thing stopping ISP competition today is that local markets don't w…
New Zealand does this. It works well. There is plenty of ISP competition - I can choose between at least 20 providers, probably a lot more. Edit: A colleague just mentioned to me that New Zealand doesn't have net neutrality and doesn't need it for this very reason.
I tried reading this in Wiki and it wasn't very clear. Are the last mile fibre? Do government owns it or are they like infrastructure owned by companies like electricity and water where there are requirement for them to open up? Do ISP only manage the fibre connection from Node / Curb? Who owns this Node / Curb?
Are there any single major companies that owns the backbone? And Submarine cables?
Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having wireless providers who are able to provide landline-level speeds means that many markets will go from having one or maybe two real ISP options to having three or four. Competition means that if the benefits of net neutrality are desirable, customers will prefer an ISP (wireless or otherwise) that provides those benefits. Of course, most actual counterexamples to net neutrality are seen as positives (free Netfl…
I really don't get why people think this is possible. Even with microcells and loads of spectrum, you might be able to get 2gigabit/sec of internet per cell, which would be enough for perhaps a couple hundred streams (not including all the other internet services people require all the time). Considering most cells right now serve thousands if not tens of thousands of devices, there is simply no way that wireless bro…
>5G really changes nothing of this. Shannon's law dictates this and we are close to topping out on it in terms of radio efficiency.
10 to 15 years ago that is what I thought. Until Massive MIMO. Some of the crazy stuff we are doing now in Wireless tech was literally dimmed theoretically impossible when I did some very early work on 3G in University. It doesn't break Shannon's law, we just find many ways around it.
Many doubt Massive MIMO will ever work, including industry expert. I doubt it too, if anyone remember something similar called pCell many years ago. It turns out it did work. It was originally created and based on TDD, we could do 128 x 128, or even 1024 x 1024 antenna. Sprint are doing 64 x 64 / 128 x 128 works on their Network already. [1] But there is a cost, power etc involved but the tech works. We thought this crazy thing would not work on FDD, which is what majority of the world uses, it turns out they have found ways around it too. Both Ericsson and Huawei's solution is much better then some originally thoughts. Not as elegant or as effective as TDD but it still works.
We have small cells, this time it actually works as advertised. Combined with LAA in 5Ghz Spectrum.
5G provides an order of magnitude increase in capacity. It also makes some backend services cheaper to run, there are already a few countries started price war in bid to attract more customer on their network as they have more capacity resources.
I still remember a few years ago, when my friend were installing her first fibre installation at her home. It was such as hassle with cable layering, ONT modem etc. She was very frustrated and asked a simple question that stuck me at the time. Why cant we all use mobile. Mobile is enough for me, why cant my home PC uses 4G too? Will there be someday where they sent me a "Modem" with SIM card in mail I plug it in and it will work?
I thought she was crazy. That is not possible, what makes her think that? You told me 5 years ago ( That is 8 - 9 years from today ) Smartphone wasn't a thing, now everyone has it and we are watching video on it already. Surely 10 years from now that should be possible right?
I said no, it is not possible. I had Shannon's law in my mind. I had me BiTorrent downloading Terabytes of data in my mind. Cell tower contention in my mind. Now I am not so sure.
Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, how is this any different to LTE on 3.4GHz or 2.6GHz? There is literally nothing different between 4G and 5G on this. 4G deployment on 3.4 or 2.6 could equally be said to be focussed on small cell, but we also have massive worldwide deployments on 450, 600, 700 and 800MHz. So is LTE also about long range?
US 5G deployment will leverage spectrum above 24 GHz where it is feasible: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/10/5g-mo... . The FCC is working on auctions of 100+ MHz channels in these bands: http://www.telecompetitor.com/fcc-proposes-schedule-for-28-g... . AT&T already spent more than a billion dollars buying up that spectrum. It’s starting 5G trials at 15 GHz: http://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/…
24GHz will require line of sight. I can't see how this is going to work for anything more than cell backhaul or fixed wireless access in very rural areas (without trees)?
Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could see a revival in P2P tech for doing real time video. Who knows, maybe we'll build local networks off the public internet.
P2P isn't very useful for real time video.
Ace Stream works really well for watching live broadcasts.
On demand video would be more difficult though since not everyone is watching the same content at the same time.
Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
US 5G deployment will leverage spectrum above 24 GHz where it is feasible: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/10/5g-mo... . The FCC is working on auctions of 100+ MHz channels in these bands: http://www.telecompetitor.com/fcc-proposes-schedule-for-28-g... . AT&T already spent more than a billion dollars buying up that spectrum. It’s starting 5G trials at 15 GHz: http://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/…
24GHz will require line of sight. I can't see how this is going to work for anything more than cell backhaul or fixed wireless access in very rural areas (without trees)?
At relatively short distances (hundreds of meters), enough radio waves bounce around in the environment to still make it to the receiever. https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/smart-antennas-co.... You need beam forming antennas to take advantage of this fact.
See: http://about.att.com/innovationblog/two_years_of_5g_tria
> Learned mmWave signals can penetrate materials such as significant foliage, glass and even walls better than initially anticipated.
Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
5G changes things dramatically. 5G deployment will be heavily focused on small cells. That means you can go to higher frequencies, because you don't care as much about propagation, and you've got much more bandwidth available at higher frequencies. So cell size goes down, users per cell goes down, and bandwidth per cell goes up. That still ends up being massively cheaper than FTTP. Getting fiber into peoples' houses…
5G might end up cheaper than FTTP, but I wouldn't get my hopes up on it being massively cheaper. Higher frequencies will require either line of sight or very short distances to the small cell. The small cells themselves will incur costs both CAPEX and OPEX. Basically the only part 5G will replace in a FTTP network is the drop. And that's where the density and the topography is cooperating. Whereas if you install a fi…
You’re not just getting rid of the drop, but also the last 100 meters or so through the subdivision. Moreover, the drop and CPE install is 30-40% of the cost of deployment.
Also, fiber is not fire and forget. Just the other day a tree took out the cable to my house. Buried cable has less maintenance, but also much higher initial costs, increasing the cost advantage of wireless for the last 200m.
Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
P2P isn't very useful for real time video.
Ace Stream works really well for watching live broadcasts. On demand video would be more difficult though since not everyone is watching the same content at the same time.
What's the latency like? Live broadcasts are hard enough to keep realtime without mixing in P2P problems like buffering and limited upstreams.