Does anyone have any input into this question. I am doing some research looking into the impacts of the advent of mobile phones on Telstra's network assets.

Are they becoming redundant? What impacts have there been on for example new investment etc..

Any thoughts, studies or ideas are welcome.

Are you asking specifically about redundancy due to mobiles?
Or are we including things like VoIP, 3G internet etc?

Certainly landlines may be considered redundant where there is alternate internet access like broadband cable, to run VoIP, but this all depends on comparisons of reliability, call quality, quality of service.

Mobiles making landlines redundant?

Who on earth would require this question researched?

Maybe a better research subject would be:

Why are universities so ignorant of what is happening in the real world?

Actually for work not uni and surprisingly quite a practical application, although an obscure angle.

Judging by responses I am thinking there has not been a lot of research done in this area.

YellowLemon writes...

Are you asking specifically about redundancy due to mobiles?

My angle is trying to determine for the client what would happen if their network were to become redundant (not necessarily telecommunications, electricity network for example) and I thought that maybe I could use Telstra as an example.

Theyre becoming less of a neccessity I think, but not actually becoming redundant.

Naked DSL will help in making them redundant in the home, for tech savvy people atleast, however I don't think you'll get the older generation to trust mobiles over a land line, and I don't forsee businesses moving away from land lines any time soon. Voip is probably more of a threat to landlines (in business) than mobiles - sure most people have mobiles, but theres not many businesses around without some form of land line.

Wazzap writes...

Naked DSL will help in making them redundant in the home

Naked DSL still requires a landline, I.E. copper from the exchange, so is still reliant on part of Telstra's network. Making a land line redundant would require using no physical copper between exchange and premises.

Wazzap writes...

Voip is probably more of a threat to landlines (in business) than mobiles - sure most people have mobiles, but theres not many businesses around without some form of land line.

VoIP will eventually replace PSTN/ISDN as the method of connection to the rest of the world, but not for some time yet. It still doesn't have a cost advantage over landlines in business applications.

The main reason mobiles can't compete is price. Can you imagine the increase in telecomms costs if all we had were mobiles?

Landlines are in no way redundant! How else would the Telcos make $30 a month (or more) from customers that never even use it?

I dream of the day when every thing will be connected via very high speed (multi Gigabyte/sec) wireless technologies.

Throw wireless power supply into the mix.

Do it all in a way that is safe to human biology and totally secure and we will be in "technology heaven".

Sadly, I suspect this is all at least a hundred years into the future.

As for the OP ...

calebsp writes...

Are they becoming redundant?

Imho, like other posters, while landline services continue to generate huge amounts of revenue for telcos they won't be disappearing.

What impacts have there been on for example new investment etc..

In the last decade Telcos have continued to invest money on copper based landline technologies - ADSL1/2/2+. Cable roll-outs by Telstra and Optus had the potential to displace copper landlines but that threat has seemingly disappeared thanks to ADSL.

The landline phone is still the most user-friendly voice comms device around. While that continues to be the case - probably at least another 50 years - the copper won't be disappearing from our streets imho.

Cheers :)

I don't think there's any doubt that landlines won't be around for ever...

www.cnet.com.au/mobileph...339288483,00.htm writes...

The number of fixed-line services, meanwhile, dropped from 11.26 million to 10.92 million.

The reasoning behind it is purely bandwidth, since audio signals can be reduced to a very low sample rate (voice is usually fine at 64kbps, and music at 128kbps is WAY more than necessary long range for communications) and requires practically no bandwidth.

Why do you think all the telcos are pushing VOIP services? Because it costs them almost nothing - it's just a tiny bit of data and measly bandwidth. Going digital for voice calls isn't such a stretch from video calls either (can anyone say 3G?) - and in the much further future, possibly holographic comms.

Land lines wont be going away.
Disaster plans call for them.
Just recently in Melbourne, there were suburbs without power for four to five days due to a storm. No power to charge the mobiles.

A few years ago Melbourne was without Gas for months.

Society is now completely dependent on secure continuous electrical supply.

Natural disasters are not that uncommon.
Think Darwin 1974, Think New Orleans. Quebec lost all its power generation in 1989 due to a solar flare taking out their hydropower transformers.

Radio frequencies are finite and you can only modulate and digitise them to a subsequent finite limit. Ultimately the demand for bandwidth will exceed the limits.

Ivanerrol writes...

Radio frequencies are finite and you can only modulate and digitise them to a subsequent finite limit. Ultimately the demand for bandwidth will exceed the limits.

Very true. As with almost everything, there is a finite limit, and big business doesn't care about when it runs out, they just want to make their profit NOW. With bandwidth, there are better modulation techniques and compression that can improve bandwidth, and they're all digital. The real solution is to get rid of all the other types of bandwidth applications (WiFi, TV, radio, bluetooth, mobile phones, ...) and do everything on the one perfect system - and just limit bandwidth by 'shaping', similar to how ISPs limit bandwidth currently.

Since this will never happen, we know that landlines are going to be sticking around for a long time to come and not just because of disasters, although they are one of the reasons why.

Society is now completely dependent on secure continuous electrical supply.

Most telephone exchanges have generator backup and other services use and can use non-mains power.

During natural disasters,states of emergency, civil emergencies,and numerous festivals lots of non-mains power is used.

Non-mains power is used in a car.

A UPS is a form of non-mains power .

Any one using ADSL has a landline, landlines are not redundant .

The first electrical digital communication was by Morse Code where a circuit was made and broken with a Morse Code key .

Since this will never happen, we know that landlines are going to be sticking around for a long time to come and not just because of disasters, although they are one of the reasons why.

Will there ever be a radio technology that's superior to landlines (copper/fibre) for fixed-location applications? Bandwidth, latency, reliability...

If not, is there a compelling reason for landlines to go away? I don't want my home internet to be disrupted by a prankster with a yagi, which will probably inevitably happen if everybody was using RF for all communications. Like idiots aiming laser pointers at aircraft.

Ivanerrol writes...

Natural disasters are not that uncommon.
Think Darwin 1974, Think New Orleans.

New Orleans? What use is a landline if your home has been washed away? :)

eug k writes...

Will there ever be a radio technology that's superior to landlines (copper/fibre) for fixed-location applications? Bandwidth, latency, reliability...

the problems then exist of output power, antenna sensitivity (size), the amount of available frequency spectrum and NIMBY syndrome about having a cell nearby.

wireless is fine for transient and mobile use, but I don't ever seeing it replacing terrestrial communciations for fixed, high-speed comms. that's unless the public as a whole is happy to pay a lot more the network and the devices than they've come to expect over recent years, and are willing to deal with a much, much denser network of cells and the accompanying saturation of signal.

packetstorm writes...

the problems then exist of output power, antenna sensitivity (size)

These are the main 2 I'd say. The transmit power for a copper cable is negligible compared to a transmission tower up on a hill trying to reach the entire metropolitan region. And yes, having a huge tower costs a lot to build, then sticking a massive antenna on it doesn't help much either.

I figure just replace everything with optical fibre and stick it underground where nobody will notice it and use that for some things and use wireless for others.

Nukkels writes...

I figure just replace everything with optical fibre and stick it underground where nobody will notice it

that's by far and away the most likely long term solution.

eug k writes...

If not, is there a compelling reason for landlines to go away? I don't want my home internet to be disrupted by a prankster with a yagi, which will probably inevitably happen if everybody was using RF for all communications.

Landlines are not as flexible as wireless for deployment purposes, and are just as secure when using licenced frequencies, when was the last time your TV signal got inteferred with by that prankster with the yagi, or an aircraft landed in your back yard becuase someone jammed the ATC radio signal for voice or the radio signal for its navigation??

There will probably allways be a use for landlines in conjunction with a mix of other access technologies moving forward, a case of horses for courses!

Mark R writes...

when was the last time your TV signal got inteferred with

Every night. Whenever it rains. When I so much as lie in the wrong position on my bed. Digital TV seems to be much more susceptible to minor fluctuations, since it's put so close to the threshold. Analogue TV would just give a small amount of static otherwise the picture was fine.

Wireless transmission is affected by so many factors, but in reality it's generally cheaper to put in place than underground systems, leading to every single house, down every street. In developing nations, and in rural/semi-rural areas, the medium of choice is usually wireless because it costs a lot less to stick a single tower in the middle of town than to dig up every street and install hundreds of km of cable (for a relatively small town).

Nukkels writes...

Wireless transmission is affected by so many factors, but in reality it's generally cheaper to put in place than underground systems

Its also harder to cut the cable with wireless (base station feedline excluded in that of course), something a few people in Sydney appreciate over the last few days and pertinent to the thread!

ironically, that cable cut isolated multiple mobile base stations for multiple carriers... you still have to get the data to the base station!

packetstorm writes...

ironically, that cable cut isolated multiple mobile base stations for multiple carriers... you still have to get the data to the base station!

Thats why I mentioned the feedline, having said that the Unwired service was still up as their feed is wireless!

Ivanerrol writes...

Just recently in Melbourne, there were suburbs without power for four to five days due to a storm. No power to charge the mobiles.

yawn. so nobody in those suburbs had a 12 volt in-car charger?

ever heard of a power inverter?

Im sure most people just charged their mobiles at work anyway.

also those landlines have 50 volts coming down the line from somewhere, so in actual fact those landlines also need power to operate.

do you really think after Cyclone Tracy there were any phones available let alone power?

Whirl writes...

I dream of the day when every thing will be connected via very high speed (multi Gigabyte/sec) wireless technologies.

Throw wireless power supply into the mix.

Keep dreaming... There is simply not enough RF spectrum to do this, and I dont want to walk around in a lead shield to keep that wireless power supply RF energy out of my body.

How about fibre optic to the wall plate? ... quite practical, gigantic baneidth potential etc , and while the pavement is dug up bung in another water distribution for 'notsopotable' water. Voila! 2 problems solved - here is a shovel - go for it.
Easy, but there's no gaul to do it is there.

eug k writes...

New Orleans? What use is a landline if your home has been washed away? :)

Earthquakes affected landlines in San Fransisco and New York a number of years ago,not forgetting the Volcano near Mexico City and the various floods and mudslides and natural disasters as well that occur each year in various places.

I do not consider a mudslide a natural disaster as they can be usually caused by de-forrestation .

People often drown in mudslides leading to a lack of speech

Other traffic & welfare traffic was and is passed by a mixture of landlines and radio in Australia and other countries.

A mixture of landlines and radio is necessary as both can fail at different times and both can be used and have been used to backup each other . Landlines are not redundant and probably never will be.

In my opinion a fiber optic line on land is a landline and all sorts of landlines and undersea cables can be broken by spades,backhoes and passing ships.

In most of Victoria telephone and fiber optic cables are run down different sides of the street to water.

Nukkels writes...

I figure just replace everything with optical fibre and stick it underground where nobody will notice it and use that for some things and use wireless for others.

...and maybe encase it in something really tough so people don't accidentally dig into them and damage the cable!

(or vandalize it like what happened in Sydney on saturday)

Mark R writes...

Landlines are not as flexible as wireless for deployment purposes, and are just as secure when using licenced frequencies, when was the last time your TV signal got inteferred with by that prankster with the yagi, or an aircraft landed in your back yard becuase someone jammed the ATC radio signal for voice or the radio signal for its navigation??

Oh, I'm pretty sure that if every internet user was wireless, some tech-savvy kid who doesn't like another kid would try and disrupt that other kid's internet connection so he gets poor ping times in Duke Nukem Forever And Ever And Again and get fragged more. Or never be able to achieve good torrent speeds. Or have Steam drop out when downloading call of duty 12. Of course, being RF, he would likely end up degrading the internet connection to a large number of people in the area too.

Or, a storm hits and rain fade kicks in. :)

(or it has been 11 years since the last sunspot cycle...)

eug k writes...

...and maybe encase it in something really tough so people don't accidentally dig into them and damage the cable!

A man in Melbourne was electrocuted today when he hit an underground power line... Those HAVE to be encased in some way or the wire would just be grounded, but it's hardly a reinforced steel pipe.

I thought they just used a plastic coating to protect underground cables because it'd be way too much effort to encase them in halfpipes then join the halves together, then join all the sections together...

This explains the constant problems of landline cables eroding and similar slow-occurring effects.

generally it's a plastic armour coat. it's not going to stop a backhoe or bobcat for a second.

eug k writes...

Oh, I'm pretty sure that if every internet user was wireless, some tech-savvy kid who doesn't like another kid would try and disrupt that other kid's internet connection so he gets poor ping times in Duke Nukem Forever And Ever And Again and get fragged more.

Thats not happening in the communities that already rely on wireless for their internet and phone systems, the threat of a massive fine for causing interference is a big carrot to do the right thing, and there are over 200000 houses in that boat right now as far as broadband goes! Those falcons with ACMA written on the side that look like hedgehogs with all the antennas on the roof are pretty effective in tracking down such activity!

Well this website just requires a credit card... Then just attach your new jammer to an external antenna... Need I say more... www.chinavasion.com/inde...curity-equipment

troppo65 writes...

Why are universities so ignorant of what is happening in the real world?

Empirical,statistically valid research with a proven methodology is different from a "gut feel" sensing which way the market is changing.

Such research is part of what Universities do. Go forth and earn your PhD.

VoxMan writes...

Then just attach your new jammer to an external antenna... Need I say more... www.chinavasion.com/inde...curity-equipment

Telephone lines seem to make beautiful dipoles@ a PO of 100W PEP

Mark R writes...

Thats not happening in the communities that already rely on wireless for their internet and phone systems,

Well, there aren't a lot of them around! That tech-savvy kid still doesn't have a victim on wireless yet. :)

Gaming on wireless is pretty bad as it is anyway.

the threat of a massive fine for causing interference is a big carrot to do the right thing,

Massive fines and prosecution certainly didn't faze the aircraft laser-pointer idiots!

(not to mention hoons, people who speed, ecstasy dealers, people selling foxtel cards from parking lots, school bullies...)

A prankster will pull pranks, regardless of the rules...

and there are over 200000 houses in that boat right now as far as broadband goes!

Maybe when it hits 2 million you'll start seeing problems...

Those falcons with ACMA written on the side that look like hedgehogs with all the antennas on the roof are pretty effective in tracking down such activity!

Mmm, I've never ever seen them. Does the ACMA randomly drive around looking for offenders? The victims of the RF jamming prank probably would have no clue that they're being jammed - they'd probably just put it down to poor wireless performance.

Actually, looking through the wireless ISP threads, for some people, it looks like you don't need jamming to get poor wireless performance. :)

eug k writes...

Mmm, I've never ever seen them. Does the ACMA randomly drive around looking for offenders? The victims of the RF jamming prank probably would have no clue that they're being jammed - they'd probably just put it down to poor wireless performance.

They actually monitor spectrum and also act on reports, under the Radiocommunications Act 1992, ACMA can: Fine operators up to $100,000, seize all infringing devices & act as witness to any civil claims. Under the act interfered users can seek compensation for degraded service as well, hence the mention about ACMA acting as a witness.

Massive fines and prosecution certainly didn't faze the aircraft laser-pointer idiots!

What massive fines in this case, the only state that has acted is NSW and that was only two weeks ago!

Wireless has its place (often in mission critical applications such as emergency services despatch and spaceflight), as do landlines, and pranksters will be pranksters!

if its all satellite you wouldnt need undergroundc ables to go to the mobile base stations. the same with microwave networks. but telstra wont bother to pay for that to happen.

just look at japan its really hard to have a land line installed there, everyone uses mobiles and wireless internet. but land lines are generally cheaper for calls recieved.

wt133 writes...

satellite

Ping Japan...
...
...
...

Timeout error. Host could not be reached.

There's this thing called latency, and is THE most important thing when gaming - satellite has ping times of like 5 seconds compared to ADSL which is more like 50-100ms in most cases. Even the speed of light has limitations...

i said nothing about trying to ping japan. Im just saying if you live there many new houses dont have landlines installed in them. And its very difficult to have them installed in some areas such as regional areas.

Mark R writes...

They actually monitor spectrum and also act on reports,
Do they actually regularly go around suburbs with DF equipment and sweep the entire frequency range looking for illegal transmitters? Or do they only do that if there's a complaint about interfernce?

under the Radiocommunications Act 1992, ACMA can: Fine operators up to $100,000, seize all infringing devices & act as witness to any civil claims. Under the act interfered users can seek compensation for degraded service as well, hence the mention about ACMA acting as a witness.

My point is, there's a difference between having laws and enforcing it. Have there been many prosecutions?

Then again, prosecutions don't mean no one will do it. Jaycar sells 5.8GHz a/v transmitters that do not comply with the ACMA's class licence requirements, which means there's bound to be a decent number of people operating them illegally. I haven't heard of the ACMA actually going out and catching people yet.

If someone gets poor performance on their wireless internet connection, they're more likely to blame the network for not working properly, rather than go "i bet somebody is jamming my signal", unless of course they know beforehand that a prankster might do it.

...which means it would never be reported to the ACMA, unless the prankster is dumb enough to leave the jammer running 24/7 for weeks on end.

Mark R writes...

What massive fines in this case, the only state that has acted is NSW and that was only two weeks ago

Whoops, that's right! The threat of prosecution was always there though, which IMHO is worse than fines. Yet that didn't stop them.

Wireless has its place (often in mission critical applications such as emergency services despatch and spaceflight), as do landlines, and pranksters will be pranksters!

Going wireless certainly does have its advantages... my original point was that wireless systems would be less robust than wired systems, especially if they're widely deployed.

It has already happened:
www.theaustralian.news.c...536-2702,00.html

Interestingly, they say "The only guaranteed way of securing police communications was to transfer them to a digital network."

I'm assuming they mean securing against eavesdroppers, not jamming. Digital transmissions can be jammed just as easily, unless they're spread-spectrum as well, which makes it more difficult but still possible.

eug k writes...

Do they actually regularly go around suburbs with DF equipment and sweep the entire frequency range looking for illegal transmitters? Or do they only do that if there's a complaint about interfernce?

They have sniffers that can report on illegal activity and then call in a DF vehicle to locate the offender, this is done on a risk assessment basis just like occupational health and safety, that is the resources are placed where they are most likely needed. Thats one mode of operation, ther are others no doubt!

Going wireless certainly does have its advantages... my original point was that wireless systems would be less robust than wired systems, especially if they're widely deployed.

Anyway my point is that they are robust, while your reference to police jamming is interesting, it does not highlight a loss of service, just interference on the normal service resulting in the use of alternate frequencies. In the case of the fibre cut in Sydney last week or the innisfail cyclone last year, the only services still running were the wireless broadband services for days after the event. In some cases cable wins, in others its wireless !

securing police comms? thats pretty funny since alot of police have their own paper files and such go missing, theres no point in securing anything to do with communications if the police cant secure their files. every year or so you hear a report of police car being broken into and files going missing.

wt133 writes...

securing police comms? thats pretty funny

Police telecommunications are secure at present, bits of paper do not telecommunicate .

One little known fact is that all police are Radio Inspectors as are specified commonwealth public services officers.

The ACMA are not the only people to use direction finding techniques .

At present Burma is one place that probably most telecommunications would not work .

Snail x of some type would probably reverted to although NGO's and government organizations would probably have comms. of some sort.

eug k writes...

haven't heard of the ACMA actually going out and catching people yet.

Reports gained from people on Whirlpool assist

...which means it would never be reported to the ACMA, unless the prankster is dumb enough to leave the jammer running 24/7 for weeks on end.

I beg to differ .

eug k writes...

My point is, there's a difference between having laws and enforcing it. Have there been many prosecutions?

The Radcomms. Act also allows for confiscation and resale of equipment,.

eug k writes...

New Orleans? What use is a landline if your home has been washed away? :

An excellent point. However, what mobile reception would be available if all the mobile towers had been washed away ?

eug k writes...

Going wireless certainly does have its advantages... my original point was that wireless systems would be less robust than wired systems, especially if they're widely deployed.

How many people know that wireless towers are connected to phone lines? We come again to a interface of the technologies, if you want mobile phones you need non-redundant wired systems or if you want wireless VoIP you need to be able to get back to the wired system.

Mark R writes...

They have sniffers that can report on illegal activity and then call in a DF vehicle to locate the offender, this is done on a risk assessment basis just like occupational health and safety, that is the resources are placed where they are most likely needed. Thats one mode of operation, ther are others no doubt!

That makes sense - having sniffers in areas of high risk.

However, I highly doubt a house in the middle of a suburb somewhere is likely to be classified a high-risk area.

Anyway, all this is moving away from the original point. Are you guys absolutely positive that the ACMA would catch one prankster interrupting somebody's wireless internet connection in the middle of a random suburb somewhere in Australia, without needing a tip-off?

Anyway my point is that they are robust, while your reference to police jamming is interesting, it does not highlight a loss of service, just interference on the normal service resulting in the use of alternate frequencies.

What if the jamming occured on the BCCH of a mobile service? Or the control channel of a trunked radio network?

(don't forget we're talking about home users here!)

I agree that radio communications are fairly robust right now - otherwise we'd all be cursing at our mobiles. What I'm saying is that wired communications is comparatively more robust, barring a widespread natural disaster, which doesn't seem to happen a lot in highly-populated areas. At least not for the last 34 years. :)

In the case of the fibre cut in Sydney last week or the innisfail cyclone last year, the only services still running were the wireless broadband services for days after the event. In some cases cable wins, in others its wireless !

Yup I fully agree with that - they both have their strengths and weaknesses. Wireless has strong advantages during natural disasters, wired has strong advantages during normal times, which is the majority of the time, which is why i say wired comms are more robust.

I'd take the reliability and low-latency of a wired connection over a wireless connection anyday, bearing in mind the risk that if there's a natural disaster or dumb contractor digging in the wrong spot, my connection could be out for a while. Fortunately it rarely happens to most people.

Ken Richards. writes...

Police telecommunications are secure at present, bits of paper do not telecommunicate .

That news article mentioned that not all of NSW police channels are digital yet. I thought they were already fully digital then - along with the rest of australia?

Ken Richards. writes...

Reports gained from people on Whirlpool assist

You're saying the ACMA have caught people illegally using Jaycar 5.8GHz transmitters thanks to reports by Whirlpool users?

I beg to differ .

As I mentioned in my last followup above, are you confident that the ACMA will catch a prankster occassionally disrupting the wireless internet connection in a house or three with a directional antenna, without anyone tipping them off?

I find it a little hard to believe, seeing that they couldn't even catch people jamming police channels in NSW.

Ken Richards. writes...

The Radcomms. Act also allows for confiscation and resale of equipment,.

Hmm ok.. I should rephrase my question then.

Have there been many prosecutions or confiscations by the ACMA? Is it a reasonable percentage?

I can imagine a prankster in a car driving around, keying up at random times. A random moving target or three is more difficult to catch!

I'm actually surprised that prankster example is still going around... it was simply an example of why I thought a wired internet connection was more robust and reliable than wireless internet connection. It's more difficult to interfere with a wired ADSL connection than a HSDPA connection.

rerzedep writes...

An excellent point. However, what mobile reception would be available if all the mobile towers had been washed away ?

That would be a real bad time. :)

I'd imagine there would be at least some towers located on high ground, as they normally are, that would survive.

Of course, we'd then have the problem of a whole city trying to log in to that one cluster of BTSes!

Long live amateur radio!

Ken Richards. writes...

How many people know that wireless towers are connected to phone lines?

Satellite phones for everyone, I say!

eug k writes...

I'd take the reliability and low-latency of a wired connection over a wireless connection anyday

There is no reason why a wireless connection cannot have the same latency as a landline, in most cases it does when its fixed wireless.

Are you guys absolutely positive that the ACMA would catch one prankster interrupting somebody's wireless internet connection in the middle of a random suburb somewhere in Australia, without needing a tip-off?

ACMA are proactive in policying the bands, if they were not then no one would be happy to pay for the licence, for instance the 100M+ that UNW paid for their spectrum is just a drop in the ocean as far as spectrum goes but it helps to fund a lot of activity when it comes to interception and policing.

I have a amateur radio ticket and so does Ken (I believe), I have been involved in radio since 1976 and as a result have had a few dealings with ACMA and its predecessors, I have also seen fines and confiscations (none of which where aimed at me), two were issued within an hour of the activity occuring, hardly time for a complaint to get to ACMA let alone time for it to be acted on!

I also have reson to believe one of the WP mods is an employee of ACMA, not that it matters, content on this board is a public resource!

Nukkels writes...

Timeout error. Host could not be reached.

There's this thing called latency, and is THE most important thing when gaming - satellite has ping times of like 5 seconds compared to ADSL which is more like 50-100ms in most cases. Even the speed of light has limitations...

Exactly.

I was about to post about latency and gaming - which is why I have stuck with ADSL and have not taken up ADSL2+ due to the ADSL2+ overhead that adds about another 7 ms to ping times.

Horses for courses.

Mark R writes...

There is no reason why a wireless connection cannot have the same latency as a landline, in most cases it does when its fixed wireless.

Below is a snippet of an article presented that looks at some of the techniques for trying to level the field between wireless and wired, however, it seems that to date you cannot match wired technology's latency with wireless (The full article alludes to this).

csdl2.computer.org/persa...9/TMC.2007.70737

Fixed wireless also is generally line of sight isn't it? or failing that, requires larger dishes and higher power output? Hardly practical for home use IMO.

I really can't see fixed wireless being made available as a general connection mechanism for the home user. I think roaming wireless is all we will get on the consumer front.

Perhaps one day when everyone is gaming on wireless then we will have a level playing field.

In gaming, I wish gaming servers could have a ping leveler, where the server tries to level everyone's ping time to be at a certain level so that gaming is more fair for all.

:-)

Maveri writes...

Below is a snippet of an article presented that looks at some of the techniques for trying to level the field between wireless and wired, however, it seems that to date you cannot match wired technology's latency with wireless (The full article alludes to this).

The article talks about 3G which is a mobile technology, not fixed, again there is no reason why fixed wireless cannot have the same latency as fixed line, for instance Motorola Canopy has a typical latency of 8ms in multipoint setup, link latency can be as low as sub 1ms for point to point!

Fixed wireless also is generally line of sight isn't it? or failing that, requires larger dishes and higher power output? Hardly practical for home use IMO.

Fixed wireless is exactly that, fixed, it does not move, so no need for cell handoff and the complicated protocols this invokes that add to latency issues!Fixed can be non line of site as well as line of site and the equipment required as far as CPE goes is about the same size as a remote control in most cases, very practical for home, you might be interested to know that of the 200+ wireless providers in Australia, some 60000+ homes have fixed wireless.

I really can't see fixed wireless being made available as a general connection mechanism for the home user. I think roaming wireless is all we will get on the consumer front.

It already is for those that dont have an option, or for those looking at freeing themselves from the cost of a landline totally in the case of Unwired cusotmers, Unwired is practically fixed but technically nomadic!

Bigmac17 writes...

Naked DSL still requires a landline, I.E. copper from the exchange, so is still reliant on part of Telstra's network. Making a land line redundant would require using no physical copper between exchange and premises

FTTx would make copper obsolete with teh ability to carry voice/data/iptv in one line. Much like cable does already just more efficiently. This is the way forward i think.

Mark R writes...

There is no reason why a wireless connection cannot have the same latency as a landline, in most cases it does when its fixed wireless.

Interference issues like what I mentioned before could force packet retransmissions, which would increase the apparent latency of the connection. That is more difficult to do with a wired system.

Can the latency of any residential fixed-point wireless systems in existence today match the latency of a wired adsl connection, or does it require some newer technology?

I have a amateur radio ticket and so does Ken (I believe), I have been involved in radio since 1976 and as a result have had a few dealings with ACMA and its predecessors, I have also seen fines and confiscations (none of which where aimed at me), two were issued within an hour of the activity occuring, hardly time for a complaint to get to ACMA let alone time for it to be acted on!

That's actually good to hear, but my question was (in another followup anyway), what is the percentage of people getting caught? Once again I'll fall back to my laser pointer example. Few (if any?) people have been caught, the threat of prosecution is there, yet people still do it. Having laws doesn't mean the activity will not happen.

Mark R writes...

again there is no reason why fixed wireless cannot have the same latency as fixed line, for instance Motorola Canopy has a typical latency of 8ms in multipoint setup, link latency can be as low as sub 1ms for point to point!

Under ideal conditions, perhaps... but what about in high-density areas? Lets say you want to provide internet access to a densely-populated city packed with apartment buildings. I'd imagine the rf-hostile environment would have a negative impact on anything wireless. Not only will there be multipath error, you could have spill from a different cell, no line of sight to many users, high-gain antennas overloading the receiver's front end with noise, rooms in brick-walled apartments without windows, etc etc.

On the other hand, like what's happening right now, people just have wired adsl connections to their individual apartments and have a little wifi AP there, covering their whole apartment nicely. It just seems like a more reliable method to do it.

If I step outside my patio door, i have full service on all my mobiles. In my bedroom, the signal level drops to 2 bars in certain positions, 1 bar in other positions. In my bathroom, the signal completely drops out. If I talk on the phone in my living room and turn myself so my head is in between the phone and my patio door, i get dropouts. I'd go nuts if my internet connection was that flaky - and I don't want to set up a table right next to my patio door just so i can put my wireless modem there. I want to hide it in a cabinet in another room. And I don't want to lose packets by walking in between the modem and the patio door! :)

Mark R writes...

so does Ken (I believe),

Yes. Last time I counted there were 4or 5 of us using Whirlpool.

I noticed a sink hole had appeared in a USA town which would make all sorts of comms. redundant, the hole is also swallowing tractors among other things .

eug k writes...

Under ideal conditions, perhaps... but what about in high-density areas?
Latency is not generally affected by signal strength, there are many users (2000+) on the Gold Coast using wireless with no issues.

Not only will there be multipath error, you could have spill from a different cell, no line of sight to many users, high-gain antennas overloading the receiver's front end with noise

Not sure where you are getting your info from (wireless should not be judged by experiences had with a mobile phone by any means), multipath can be used to increase range and is associated with certain types of modulation, not all. The same multipath also helps to overcome non line of site problems, it is a well known solution for business users in New York where buildings often get in the way of LOS for links, as a result they are getting 100Mb links in non LOS installed in hours with a latency of 8ms. Check out some feedback here from a user of that company (you guessed it, the phone died but they stayed up) www.towerstream.com/inde...ase_study_id=583

As for interference, again I refer to the Gold Coast, there are adjacent cells 5km apart that dont interfere with each other, because they are properly planned, have a look at the tower at Dream World, the one on the hill at Helensvale and then the one at the Smith st exit to see what I mean!

We provide DSLAMs, Fibre and Wireless equipment, we have wireless links providing 50mbs throughput over 50-100km links in various places, you cannot do that with xDSL for instance, and fibre would be expensive.

On the other hand we also have apartments wired up for broadband with a DSLAM (ADSL2+ or VDSL2) and not wireless because wired makes sense, although some of those are backhauled by wireless because it is the best solution. There are locations in Queensland where there are no conventional copper phone lines whatsoever, at these places landlines are already obsolete in the context of this discussion!

Mark R writes...

Latency is not generally affected by signal strength, there are many users (2000+) on the Gold Coast using wireless with no issues.

Retransmissions won't affect perceived latency?

Not sure where you are getting your info from (wireless should not be judged by experiences had with a mobile phone by any means),

What about from user comments in the wireless ISP forums? iBurst and Unwired consistently have higher latency than ADSL connections, based on the posts I've read.

The same multipath also helps to overcome non line of site problems, it is a well known solution for business users in New York where buildings often get in the way of LOS for links, as a result they are getting 100Mb links in non LOS installed in hours with a latency of 8ms.

Are you referring to point-to-point links, or a system set up to provide blanket coverage to a large number of users?

As for interference, again I refer to the Gold Coast, there are adjacent cells 5km apart that dont interfere with each other, because they are properly planned, have a look at the tower at Dream World, the one on the hill at Helensvale and then the one at the Smith st exit to see what I mean!

I remember being on the top floor of a tall building and having full signal on my mobile, but was not able to make an outgoing call. the calls that do go through would drop out.

The situation improved when i was inside a room on that floor, rather than near the window.

I'm wondering if that was due to the height - I was within LOS of multiple cells.

Bad planning? Perhaps... but if that really was the cause, then it can happen... telcos or wisps don't always get things 100% right!

We provide DSLAMs, Fibre and Wireless equipment, we have wireless links providing 50mbs throughput over 50-100km links in various places, you cannot do that with xDSL for instance, and fibre would be expensive.

Wireless systems certainly have a cost advantage. However you're always skimming over my main point.

My main point is that it is easier to interfere with a wireless connection than a wired connection. Hence my viewpoint that a wired system is more robust than a wireless system. I never said that it's cheaper or easier to roll out a wired system.

Is that untrue?

On the other hand we also have apartments wired up for broadband with a DSLAM (ADSL2+ or VDSL2) and not wireless because wired makes sense, although some of those are backhauled by wireless because it is the best solution. There are locations in Queensland where there are no conventional copper phone lines whatsoever, at these places landlines are already obsolete in the context of this discussion!

Well, as I said in another followup, both have their advantages and disadvantages. I'm just curious as to why you seem to be insisting that wireless systems are just as reliable as a wired system. Don't forget that we're talking about a residential scenario with many users, rather than a point-to-point link or a smaller wireless network.

Another thing that makes landlines not redundant is that some landlines carry light frequencies .

You cannot have wide broadband wireless transmissions even if they are spread spectrum because the current spectrum does not allow it .

eug k writes...

I'm just curious as to why you seem to be insisting that wireless systems are just as reliable as a wired system. Don't forget that we're talking about a residential scenario with many users, rather than a point-to-point link or a smaller wireless network.

Because wireless is some cases will be more reliable that fixed line, pickup the phone and ring someone in Springbrook QLD and ask them about their experience with their phone, not a small wireless network, in fact they are covered by two large networks. I already linked to a case study for New York (again hardly a small network), here is another example. The point to point links also make up the backhaul, in the case of the fibre cut in Sydney they were the reason why networks remained up and usable, very much part of the context of this discussion!

My main point is that it is easier to interfere with a wireless connection than a wired connection. Hence my viewpoint that a wired system is more robust than a wireless system. I never said that it's cheaper or easier to roll out a wired system.

Is that untrue?

Yes it is untrue, legalities aside a pair of cable cutters can be aquired by anyone in seconds and a few more seconds they have listed up a cable pit cover or broken into a MDF, its take a bit more time and knowledge to acquire a transmitter that may interfere with a broadband signal. Intent aside, a quick google search will show up just how many times a cable cut has occurred that affects users, by comparison reports of wireless broadband service interference are no where near as common using the same measuring stick, and when they do occur the affect in the network is far less as far as number of users go.

What about from user comments in the wireless ISP forums? iBurst and Unwired consistently have higher latency than ADSL connections, based on the posts I've read.

Both are nomadic or mobile systems and have a latency similar to 3G for the same reason, the protocol in use needs to take account of the mobility and this affects latency.

Wireless is better than landlines in some cases (such as Springbrook in QLD to name one local example) and in other cases landlines make sense, I cannot see either dissapearing from the scene anytime in the future.

Mark R writes...

Because wireless is some cases will be more reliable that fixed line, pickup the phone and ring someone in Springbrook QLD and ask them about their experience with their phone, not a small wireless network, in fact they are covered by two large networks.

Phones? Mobile networks have proven that voice coverage isn't a problem. What about internet access, which is what we were talking about?

I would certainly like to find out the results of a poll asking them if they'd prefer wireless internet access with its associated speed and latency (we're talking about technology that's in place right now), over an ADSL2-enabled phone exchange in their suburb. Even ADSL1 would give higher speeds and lower latency than existing wireless internet systems - as long as you're not too far away from the exchange. Once again, that's a cost issue, not an issue with the wires.

The point to point links also make up the backhaul, in the case of the fibre cut in Sydney they were the reason why networks remained up and usable, very much part of the context of this discussion!

I think you're mixing up posts here. I have never talked about point-to-point links. I was always talking about the last mile - getting internet access to the home user. If you read through the discussion, you'll notice that the main focus is on the last mile.

Yes it is untrue, legalities aside a pair of cable cutters can be aquired by anyone in seconds and a few more seconds they have listed up a cable pit cover or broken into a MDF, its take a bit more time and knowledge to acquire a transmitter that may interfere with a broadband signal.

OK, let me get this straight. You're saying that it is easier to interfere with a wired (home phone/adsl in this case) connection than it is with a wireless connection?

I really think it's easier to buy a phone jammer off the internet and switching it on near the victim's house, rather than getting a pair of cable cutters, breaking into a cable pit or a building's MDF without being noticed, figure out which cable pair belongs to the victim, and disrupt that.

Do remember that I'm talking about, and have always talked about, wireless systems that are being used right now, not some future system that we haven't implemented yet.

Switching on a jammer leaves no physical evidence either. It can be a small box inside a backpack powered by a battery, carried by someone who's pretending to talk on a phone outside the victim's house. That'll draw far less attention than walking around with bolt cutters and breaking into buildings to get to the MDFs.

Intent aside, a quick google search will show up just how many times a cable cut has occurred that affects users, by comparison reports of wireless broadband service interference are no where near as common using the same measuring stick, and when they do occur the affect in the network is far less as far as number of users go.

I think a more valid conclusion can only be drawn when the number of wireless users matches the number of wired users.

Moving away from the last mile for a second, major cable cuts caused by earthquakes remind me how valuable cables are. Latency would shoot up by a huge amount when the main cable link is replaced with a wireless satellite link!

Is there a viable wireless replacement that can match the bandwidth and latency of undersea fiber, while being more reliable?

Both are nomadic or mobile systems and have a latency similar to 3G for the same reason, the protocol in use needs to take account of the mobility and this affects latency.

OK, back to residential connections. So there is no technology that is currently deployed that can match the performance of a wired connection then? That was what I was getting at. If I want fast, low-latency internet access right now, I really don't see a choice other than a wired connection.

Once again, remember that I do know that cost is an issue - in most cases it's cheaper to provide wireless services than lay new cables. That has nothing to do with the fact (now) that i am likely to get superior performance from a cabled connection than a wireless connection if I had a choice.

Wireless is better than landlines in some cases (such as Springbrook in QLD to name one local example) and in other cases landlines make sense, I cannot see either dissapearing from the scene anytime in the future.

Better in what way? Cost or performance? Voice or data? Wireless certainly seems to work perfectly fine for voice, but high-speed data, compared to a good cabled connection?

eug k writes...

OK, back to residential connections. So there is no technology that is currently deployed that can match the performance of a wired connection then? That was what I was getting at. If I want fast, low-latency internet access right now, I really don't see a choice other than a wired connection.

I am on the Sunshine Coast and at my office I use the FlexiNet ISP which is a wireless service using the Motorola Canopy technology. At home I have an ADSL1 connection (ADSL2 not available in our area). The wireless service is faster and has lower latency than the ADSL connection and works out about $25/month cheaper overall (plan cost is basically the same as the ADSL price BUT I dont have to pay line rental for a phone line I don't need. I run VOIP (2 lines) over the wireless connection with better call quality than over the ADSL at home.

Have had a few problems with service dropping out but support have indicated that those problems were caused by their backhaul (cabled) connection to Brisbane rather than the wireless part of the service. Also have had a couple of times with poor connections during really severe storms (think almost cyclone strength winds and rain) but overall reliability would be in the high 99% range (and certainly no extended outages like I had at home when the Telstra line failed and it took them 3 days to fix it).

Terry writes...

I am on the Sunshine Coast and at my office I use the FlexiNet ISP which is a wireless service using the Motorola Canopy technology. At home I have an ADSL1 connection (ADSL2 not available in our area). The wireless service is faster and has lower latency than the ADSL connection and works out about $25/month cheaper overall (plan cost is basically the same as the ADSL price BUT I dont have to pay line rental for a phone line I don't need. I run VOIP (2 lines) over the wireless connection with better call quality than over the ADSL at home.

That is good to hear, a wireless system that seems to work well. The local National Wireless distributor intro'ed me to Canopy a few years ago, for a site-wide wireless network. The cost didn't help one bit - not surprising for a completely propreitary system.

However, it still doesn't negate the point I was trying to put forward. You don't have ADSL2 in your area presumably because of a cost issue, which I mentioned before.

All my examples were of urban higher-density areas, which is where wires may make more sense. In areas where the population density is lower, I would imagine a wireless sytem being far more cost-effective.

And once again, to avoid any further misunderstanding, what I was trying to say was (yes, i feel a bit repetitive myself), I believe a wired connection is more difficult to interfere with compared to a wireless connection.

If every single person had a choice between a wired 20Mbps ADSL2+ connection as opposed to a wireless 20Mbps connection for a fixed location with similar monthly fees, my guess is more people would opt for the wired solution. Just compare the price of a Canopy radio to a good adsl2+ modem! :)

What speeds and latency do you get on both the adsl and wireless system? I just had a quick glance at the Canopy specs and they don't seem that fast compared to ADSL2+.

Have had a few problems with service dropping out but support have indicated that those problems were caused by their backhaul (cabled) connection to Brisbane rather than the wireless part of the service.

This may certainly not be the case, but many companies play the blame game. It's always someone elses' fault. :)

Also have had a couple of times with poor connections during really severe storms (think almost cyclone strength winds and rain) but overall reliability would be in the high 99% range (and certainly no extended outages like I had at home when the Telstra line failed and it took them 3 days to fix it).

That must be a good example of a wireless system that is well-set up, under ideal conditions.

I do agree than getting telstra to fix a line problem can be a real pain, after helping friends and clients with their bad lines. Fortunately for me, I've never had a line fault after the early days of ADSL, and have good sync speeds.

If cellular phone companies with a far larger market and budget than a WISP cannot provide excellent cellular coverage in inner-city locations, I really wonder what sort of coverage the WISPs of the future would be able to give, especially in a busy area with many buildings. Barring some new whizbang technology of course. There's just a limit as to where an RF signal can travel.

eug k writes...

However, it still doesn't negate the point I was trying to put forward. You don't have ADSL2 in your area presumably because of a cost issue, which I mentioned before.

Actually ADSL2 is available from our phone exchange BUT due to Telstra's brilliant network it is not available to either my home or office as the physical line is not ADSL2 compatible. Considering the home is only 3 years old and the office was completed less than a year ago, both are only a couple of km from the exchange and are in one of the fastest growing areas in Australia you would THINK that Telstra might have actually put phone lines in capable of handling ADSL2!

I do agree that had ADSL2 been available to my I probably would have gone for that over the wireless option but having used it for 6 months now I am not so sure.

Speed is not the most important thing to me as I use the connection for business purposes (VOIP, email, web browsing and remote connection to an interstate server) so the 1Mbps I get from the Wireless is plenty fast enough (the speed test shows I am actually getting around 1.1Mbps). Ping times for the servers I use are slightly quicker than on the ADSL1 home connection (around 25-30ms on the wireless) but there is not much in it.

I agree that in most cases a landline connection will be more reliable than MOST wireless connections but just wanted to illustrate that there is wireless technology around that can deliver fixed line reliability, similar ping times although not quite ADSL2 speeds - my ISP will go to 2Mbps but I believe the newer generation of Canopy systems will go up to 14Mbps with latency at around 5-7ms.

Terry writes...

- my ISP will go to 2Mbps but I believe the newer generation of Canopy systems will go up to 14Mbps with latency at around 5-7ms.

Terry, I am glad you are enjoying a service that is doing the job for you, we worked closely with Flexinet on their deployment as we are the official distributor for Canopy in Australia since it was launched, in theory your equipment should do 7mbs however the backhaul issues are well known for the sunshine coast, which is why extra funding was given as part of the clever networks project last year to Allegro and others. Bit of a joke given the population density on the Sunshine coast, then again there are industrial parks in Brisbane that can only get frame relay for broadband!

Terry writes...

Actually ADSL2 is available from our phone exchange BUT due to Telstra's brilliant network it is not available to either my home or office as the physical line is not ADSL2 compatible. Considering the home is only 3 years old and the office was completed less than a year ago, both are only a couple of km from the exchange and are in one of the fastest growing areas in Australia you would THINK that Telstra might have actually put phone lines in capable of handling ADSL2!

Hmm, you could be on a RIM, which i believe is a cheaper way to provide wired phone service to an area rather than building another whole exchange.

My biggest gripe with wired internet is that I would suffer downtime if I moved or changed ISP. I'm planning on switching to naked internode from iinet and am expecting some downtime, so i've been looking at temporary wireless internet solutions. The most cost-effective for me is 3, i just hope they don't stuff up my billing again!

Terry writes...

agree that in most cases a landline connection will be more reliable than MOST wireless connections but just wanted to illustrate that there is wireless technology around that can deliver fixed line reliability, similar ping times although not quite ADSL2 speeds - my ISP will go to 2Mbps but I believe the newer generation of Canopy systems will go up to 14Mbps with latency at around 5-7ms.

I'm pretty sure speeds will go up as technology advances - they certainly won't go down or stay stagnant!

The 14Mbps Canopy system sounds like their 5GHz devices, which can deliver that throughput and latency under good conditions. Unfotunately 5GHz is more easily affected by things like trees and heavy rain, and doesn't work as well as lower freqs when there's no line-of-sight. Still, it's a step forward!

there is wireless technology around that can deliver fixed line reliability,
Under normal circumstances yes, a good radio network can probably be as reliable as a wired connection. My original point that seems to have started all this is that it is easier to purposely, with malicious intent, interfere with a wireless connection than it is with a wired connection, like what a prankster would do.

Will it happen? Probably not now.. but if absolutely everybody was on a wireless connection, it would be a more attractive target to attack! Headline: Prankster disrupts half a suburb's internet connectivity, resulting in a VOIP triple-0 call not going through.

Ken Richards. writes...

Yes. Last time I counted there were 4or 5 of us using Whirlpool.

FWIW, i took my radio exam in 1996 and passed, but got slack and never applied for a licence. Urgh.

I'm surprised there aren't a large number of amateurs on WP! I reckon they're just hiding. :)

eug k writes...

! I reckon they're just hiding. :)

I agree.

Talk to the ACMA if you want to. You passed the required exams and to my knowledge the qualifications don't deteriorate.