A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 13th 18, 10:39 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband,uk.telecom.mobile
Martin Brown[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default 5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three

On 09/11/2018 17:45, Chris wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/11/2018 11:41, NY wrote:
"Java Jive" wrote in message
news 5G hyping getting into its stride ...

"5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46127712

Actually, out here in northern Scotland, 4G could already make my
landline redundant if only there was a suitably priced plan that gave
me unlimited or nearly so download limits, but AFAIAA there isn't.

Yes there are two critical things that are needed before you can even
*think* about ditching your landline:

- good coverage of mobile signal
- affordable tariff, comparable with what you would pay for landline
broadband

At present we have neither. Mobile coverage, even for simple phone
calls, let alone fast data, is patchy where I live. Mobile data tariffs
exist, but they still tend to be limited in terms of how much data you
can access per month, and they tend to be more expensive.

But this will change.


But probably only in the areas already well served by fast fixed lines.

I can't see rural North Yorkshire ever getting past 3G until hell
freezes over. Plenty are still on 2.5G and one bar of signal on a good
day if you are lucky. People here are used to balancing their phone on a
vase in the right window to gat any kind of mobile signal at all.


Isn't that because of the moors national park? I can imagine putting masts
on/near there is not possible.


Actually there are quite a few big antennas around here - BMEWS Site 3
for instance and various other microwave link infrastructure dating back
to the cold war. Some mobile network nodes are colocated with existing
telecoms infrastructure sites and on hills either side of the major
roads but topography means that there are dead spots (even when the
range based mobile coverage maps say everything is fine).

Snag is that high frequency radio waves need strict line of sight and
don't bend round hills very much - just a bit of Fresnel diffraction.
You get patches where the signal comes and goes nd it ll br aks p.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #22  
Old November 13th 18, 10:46 AM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,uk.telecom.broadband
Martin Brown[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default 5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three

On 08/11/2018 15:29, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 08/11/2018 09:19, Java Jive wrote:
5G hyping getting into its stride ...

"5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46127712

Actually, out here in northern Scotland, 4G could already make my
landline redundant if only there was a suitably priced plan that gave
me unlimited or nearly so download limits, but AFAIAA there isn't.


I just don't like the concept of relying on radio connections for
*everything* - there is just a certain satisfying something about a
fixed pair of wires, maybe it's just me.


Increasingly where I live in North Yorkshire the people who depend on a
decent quality fast internet connection are switching to a peer to peer
microwave based network for internet, mobile phone for voice and
ditching their landline entirely. Why pay an extra line rental charge
when the service it offers is worse than second rate?

I only need to find another four takers for the service in my village
and it will be possible to have a rebroadcast node here. I have seen a
similar system in parts of the Lake District. The only limitation is
that you need strict line of sight to a node to get a connection.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #23  
Old November 13th 18, 07:20 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband,uk.telecom.mobile
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 539
Default 5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three

Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/11/2018 17:45, Chris wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/11/2018 11:41, NY wrote:
"Java Jive" wrote in message
news 5G hyping getting into its stride ...

"5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46127712

Actually, out here in northern Scotland, 4G could already make my
landline redundant if only there was a suitably priced plan that gave
me unlimited or nearly so download limits, but AFAIAA there isn't.

Yes there are two critical things that are needed before you can even
*think* about ditching your landline:

- good coverage of mobile signal
- affordable tariff, comparable with what you would pay for landline
broadband

At present we have neither. Mobile coverage, even for simple phone
calls, let alone fast data, is patchy where I live. Mobile data tariffs
exist, but they still tend to be limited in terms of how much data you
can access per month, and they tend to be more expensive.

But this will change.

But probably only in the areas already well served by fast fixed lines.

I can't see rural North Yorkshire ever getting past 3G until hell
freezes over. Plenty are still on 2.5G and one bar of signal on a good
day if you are lucky. People here are used to balancing their phone on a
vase in the right window to gat any kind of mobile signal at all.


Isn't that because of the moors national park? I can imagine putting masts
on/near there is not possible.


Actually there are quite a few big antennas around here - BMEWS Site 3
for instance and various other microwave link infrastructure dating back
to the cold war. Some mobile network nodes are colocated with existing
telecoms infrastructure sites and on hills either side of the major
roads but topography means that there are dead spots (even when the
range based mobile coverage maps say everything is fine).

Snag is that high frequency radio waves need strict line of sight and
don't bend round hills very much - just a bit of Fresnel diffraction.
You get patches where the signal comes and goes nd it ll br aks p.


Sorry. Can you speak up? Didn't catch the last bit...

  #24  
Old November 17th 18, 05:15 AM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,uk.telecom.broadband
Chris in Makati
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default 5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three

On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:05:14 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

On 08/11/2018 11:41, NY wrote:

I just hope that the phone companies don't blow all their money
upgrading mobile/data coverage for the people who already have a fairly
fast connection, and neglect the people in more rural areas who can't
even get 100% reliable phone call and slow data coverage.


Which, of course, is exactly what will happen under the current
laissez-faire non-management of hands-off-com. What is needed at very
least is a regime where telecoms operators have to finish rolling out nG
to the entire population before they are allowed to commence rolling out
(n+1)G, but this never, ever seems to happen !-(


Providing mobile coverage to absolutely everyone is never going to
happen, nor should it be necessary to do so. In some areas it's
totally uneconomic to install cellsites when all that's in the
coverage area are a handful of people and a few sheep.
  #25  
Old November 17th 18, 08:18 AM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,uk.telecom.broadband
Tweed[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default 5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three

Chris in Makati wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:05:14 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

On 08/11/2018 11:41, NY wrote:

I just hope that the phone companies don't blow all their money
upgrading mobile/data coverage for the people who already have a fairly
fast connection, and neglect the people in more rural areas who can't
even get 100% reliable phone call and slow data coverage.


Which, of course, is exactly what will happen under the current
laissez-faire non-management of hands-off-com. What is needed at very
least is a regime where telecoms operators have to finish rolling out nG
to the entire population before they are allowed to commence rolling out
(n+1)G, but this never, ever seems to happen !-(


Providing mobile coverage to absolutely everyone is never going to
happen, nor should it be necessary to do so. In some areas it's
totally uneconomic to install cellsites when all that's in the
coverage area are a handful of people and a few sheep.


But shouldn't the aim to be to provide coverage to everywhere rather than
everyone? It is, after all, a mobile system. As an end user, I'd like to
see my mobile operate everywhere, just in case I happen to end up in your
place with one person and half a dozen sheep and need to make a call/
received data etc. Clearly, 100% coverage is never going to happen, but it
should be a goal. There must be lots of sites that on their own are
uneconomic, but add to the utility of the system, which in itself is
economic.

  #26  
Old November 17th 18, 10:31 AM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,uk.telecom.broadband
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 377
Default 5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three

On 17/11/2018 04:15, Chris in Makati wrote:

Providing mobile coverage to absolutely everyone is never going to
happen, nor should it be necessary to do so. In some areas it's
totally uneconomic to install cellsites when all that's in the
coverage area are a handful of people and a few sheep.


The emergency services are going to replace their current TETRA system
with a 4G network. Are you saying that they should'n't be able to
communicate in low population areas? If a farmer gets injured by his
livestock or his machinery some distance from his landline and cannot
walk to it, should (s)he not be able to phone for help?
  #27  
Old November 17th 18, 10:49 AM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default 5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three

Java Jive wrote:
On 17/11/2018 04:15, Chris in Makati wrote:

Providing mobile coverage to absolutely everyone is never going to
happen, nor should it be necessary to do so. In some areas it's
totally uneconomic to install cellsites when all that's in the
coverage area are a handful of people and a few sheep.


The emergency services are going to replace their current TETRA system
with a 4G network.* Are you saying that they should'n't be able to
communicate in low population areas?* If a farmer gets injured by his
livestock or his machinery some distance from his landline and cannot
walk to it, should (s)he not be able to phone for help?


Farmers have historically fitted 2-way radios in vehicles to cover
exactly this sort of emergency.

However, many agricultural vehicles require an internet connection to
operate and arrange maintenance and the like, so a 3G/4G/5G service is
virtually essential. The same applies to "smart meters" for electricity
(and presumably gas). Many houses can't get any sort of mobile phone
signal inside where the meters are installed - in my house for example
the only place where a mobile phone gets a signal is on a north-facing
windowsill. I live a few miles from Thetford, so not a remote rural
location!

If having a mobile phone or an internet connection improves the
efficiency of a variety of services, then some part of the cost of
providing the phone or internet should be borne by the services gaining
the advantage. This might then make it practical to increase coverage;
but it would probably require legislation to ensure a universal service
obligation.

--
Graham J



  #28  
Old November 17th 18, 11:54 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
R. Mark Clayton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 550
Default 5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three

On Saturday, 17 November 2018 07:18:27 UTC, Tweed wrote:
Chris in Makati wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:05:14 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

On 08/11/2018 11:41, NY wrote:

I just hope that the phone companies don't blow all their money
upgrading mobile/data coverage for the people who already have a fairly
fast connection, and neglect the people in more rural areas who can't
even get 100% reliable phone call and slow data coverage.

Which, of course, is exactly what will happen under the current
laissez-faire non-management of hands-off-com. What is needed at very
least is a regime where telecoms operators have to finish rolling out nG
to the entire population before they are allowed to commence rolling out
(n+1)G, but this never, ever seems to happen !-(


Providing mobile coverage to absolutely everyone is never going to
happen, nor should it be necessary to do so. In some areas it's
totally uneconomic to install cellsites when all that's in the
coverage area are a handful of people and a few sheep.


But shouldn't the aim to be to provide coverage to everywhere rather than
everyone? It is, after all, a mobile system. As an end user, I'd like to
see my mobile operate everywhere, just in case I happen to end up in your
place with one person and half a dozen sheep and need to make a call/
received data etc. Clearly, 100% coverage is never going to happen, but it
should be a goal. There must be lots of sites that on their own are
uneconomic, but add to the utility of the system, which in itself is
economic.


Truly mobile coverage everywhere is technically difficult - tunnels, deep valleys, large steel frame buildings etc.

Providing [fixed] broadband to every dwelling is easier - existing wire or new fibre to most homes, 4/5G in difficult areas and satellite for the few in the highlands and islands.

  #29  
Old November 17th 18, 12:05 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,uk.telecom.broadband
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default 5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three

"Chris in Makati" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:05:14 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

On 08/11/2018 11:41, NY wrote:

I just hope that the phone companies don't blow all their money
upgrading mobile/data coverage for the people who already have a fairly
fast connection, and neglect the people in more rural areas who can't
even get 100% reliable phone call and slow data coverage.


Which, of course, is exactly what will happen under the current
laissez-faire non-management of hands-off-com. What is needed at very
least is a regime where telecoms operators have to finish rolling out nG
to the entire population before they are allowed to commence rolling out
(n+1)G, but this never, ever seems to happen !-(


Providing mobile coverage to absolutely everyone is never going to
happen, nor should it be necessary to do so. In some areas it's
totally uneconomic to install cellsites when all that's in the
coverage area are a handful of people and a few sheep.



Agreed. I'm not talking about remote places like that. I'm talking about a
fairly flat plain (Ryedale) with villages of a couple of few hundred people
every mile or so in every direction. And market towns like Malton and
Pickering. And a couple of trunk A roads leading to the coast.

In that terrain I'd expect mobile phone companies to provide almost seamless
mobile phone reception, and pretty good (eg 3G) data reception in most
places. I'm not sure whether the problem is poor signal coverage or
overloaded masts. I suspect that "not registered on network" means "good
signal strength but the mast you are talking to can't accept any more
connections at the moment". When signal strength does vary, it seems to do
so even when you are static - time-dependent as well as location-dependent
fluctuations. I've got Network Cell Info Lite installed on my phone and the
quality of data connection varies wildly in one place between 2.5G and 4G
where I am at present, even though though the strength remains pretty
constant. That's in a tiny hamlet in Wensleydale which *does* come into the
"handful of people and a few sheep" category.

  #30  
Old November 17th 18, 01:05 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,uk.telecom.broadband
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 377
Default 5G will let users ditch fixed-line home broadband, says Three

On 17/11/2018 09:49, Graham J wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On 17/11/2018 04:15, Chris in Makati wrote:

Providing mobile coverage to absolutely everyone is never going to
happen, nor should it be necessary to do so. In some areas it's
totally uneconomic to install cellsites when all that's in the
coverage area are a handful of people and a few sheep.


The emergency services are going to replace their current TETRA system
with a 4G network.* Are you saying that they should'n't be able to
communicate in low population areas?* If a farmer gets injured by his
livestock or his machinery some distance from his landline and cannot
walk to it, should (s)he not be able to phone for help?


Farmers have historically fitted 2-way radios in vehicles to cover
exactly this sort of emergency.


If they cannot walk to their landline, then they're unlikely to be able
to walk to a vehicle either, while a mobile phone is hopefully in a
farmer's pocket.

If having a mobile phone or an internet connection improves the
efficiency of a variety of services, then some part of the cost of
providing the phone or internet should be borne by the services gaining
the advantage.* This might then make it practical to increase coverage;
but it would probably require legislation to ensure a universal service
obligation.


Currently many such services also use the roads, but, while there is a
licence to pay, there is no tax on the roads per se. Applying the same
principle to mobile infrastructure, the logical consequence of what you
are saying is that mobiles should be taxed to pay for extending the
infrastructure into remote areas, but others here, for example MB, are
constantly bleating that they don't see why people who live in towns
should subsidise those who live in the countryside. The truth is that
all such debates are full of inherent contradictions, and almost any
stance one takes is open to a charge of inconsistency or even hypocrisy.

To me the overriding principle is that of equality of treatment, as
exemplified by emergencies. If you want the emergency services to use
relatively cheap 4G services instead of the current expensive bespoke
network which apparently in some respects doesn't actually work very
well, and you also want them to be able to operate in remote areas, then
the government will need to fund the extension of the network into
remote areas. Historically this has already been done with many other
services, which we now take for granted - electricity, clean drinking
water, postal service, etc - so I really don't see any reason in
principle why it shouldn't apply to mobile phone networks as well,
especially as the landline infrastructure in many remote areas is in
such a ****-poor state of repair. In many such locations, perhaps even
most, it would cheaper to replace landlines with a good mobile service
than to try to repair the copper wiring to every home, let alone replace
it with fibre.

To get back to my original post, already 4G gives me a better download
speed from my mobile than I get from my landline, and I would happily
give up the latter if:

* In case of power failure, the mobile service was guaranteed to
last at least as long as the landline service can.

* There was an equivalently priced broadband package offering an
unlimited or nearly so download limit.
 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Three / 3 (Mobile) - Skype on three (Non-three [Symbian - Nokia] handsets) News Reader uk.telecom.voip (UK VOIP) 0 January 5th 10 08:25 AM
Ditch SPA3102? Linker3000 uk.telecom.voip (UK VOIP) 6 October 24th 08 01:02 AM
Ditch Demon? Paul D.Smith uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 4 March 1st 05 01:28 PM
BB checker says "YES" but Virgin.net says "NO" -- why? Simon Langford uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 5 December 11th 04 12:13 AM
SDSL line checker says yes, ADSL says no Iwan Davies uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 6 June 10th 04 10:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2018 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.