4G Broadband and GPS conflict

[Aussie Steve]

This is a bit of a worry considering there has been recent talk of Telstra going to the 4G wireless set up.

 

extract below is from the current "AvWeb"

 

Garmin is standing by its position that a proposal to build a network of 40,000 broadband transmission towers around the U.S. could severely disrupt GPS service. As we reported last week, LightSquared has received conditional FCC approval to install the massive system to carry 4G signals, the conditions being that it restrict its signals to their assigned frequencies on the L Band 1 (1525 MHz—1559 MHz) and test existing GPS devices to see what kind of interference the transmitters might cause. GPS uses the a frequency range of 1159-1610 MHz, which is right next to the LightSquared signal. Garmin's Jessica Myers told AVweb in a podcast interview that Garmin has done testing on its own and determined there's no practical way for the two systems to coexist.

 

Myers said even if the LightSquared signals stay within their boundaries, they will be so strong compared to the very low-power GPS signals that reach Earth from the satellites that the GPS equipment will simply be overwhelmed. She said it may be technically possible to build filters that will block the LightSquared signals but they would be cost-prohibitive. Myers said that because the transmitters are ground-based, the biggest impact on GPS will occur in critical phases of flight like approach. She also noted that there are millions of marine and auto GPS units that could be affected. LightSquared says Garmin's tests are suspect because it didn't use the actual equipment that will be installed on the broadband towers. Real-world testing is expected to begin this month.

 

 

[P4D]

Wow great stuff. Keep us up dated please

 

 

[Spin]

That sounds like a letter to the communications minister (with a copy to the opposition counterpart:oh yeah:) is called for. I'd like to think it is just scaremongering however stranger things have happened.

 

Dear Sir

 

Blah blah,... please confirm that this equipment will not negatively impact current GPS installations, which are vital safety equipment in marine, aviation and rescue vehicles, and advise what safeguards have been put in place to prevent such an occurrence.

 

Blah blah

 

Yrs faithfully

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I guess it depends what form of "4G" is being talked about. "4G" includes several different technologies: WiMax and LTE. Early "4G" implementations tend to be "WiMax", not the eventual "LTE Advanced" standard. There is also discussion as to whether WiMax will support the full "4G" specification!

 

In the 3GPP (3G Partnership) camp, there's also an interim step called "LTE" which does not support all of the "4G" specification either, so there will undoubtedly be a lot of confusion. Of course all marketers will just refer to "4G" and any distinction in whether the service complies with the full "4G" specification of only part, will be lost.

 

"LTE Advanced" is backward compatible with "LTE", but neither are backward compatible with "3G".

 

WiMax has been deployed by some ISPs in Australia to deliver wireless broadband, however Telstra will deploy "LTE". It is supected that all operators that currently run UMTS, GSM and/or CDMA networks will not deploy WiMax, as LTE will allow re-use of certain back-end platforms in which they have a significant investment (OSS and authentication).

 

LightSquared is planning on an LTE network using both Inmarsat and terestrial stations. It seems that it is these terrestrial stations that will use the frequency range in the "L-Band" previously reserved mainly for satellite GNSS systems.

 

While there is a significant difference in findings between Garmin and LightSquared interference testing, the US FCC has instituted a programme of co-operative testing amongst all the players and will not allow Lightsquared to go to a commercial service until such interference issues are solved. It isn't just Garmin that are worried. The US Department of Defense, Deparrment of Homeland Security and others are also concerned.

 

The FCC does not control radio spectrum or spectrum licenses in Australia. That is ACMA, so there's no guarantee of the same band being allowed to be used in Australia, and I'll bet they will be watching the process in the US.

 

I think this has some way to go to play out and in the interim will be fodder for journalists to scare people.

 

 

[Aussie Steve]

Not to mention if the signal emitted will cause any added risk of radiation exposure to humans ?

 

The current Mobile phone towers are the "Bane" of a lot of worried residents / schools etc now !

 

If these new 4G towers are a lot more powerful, I cant see how they CANT be !

 

mmmm ? I know its a contentious issue, but me thinks its about to hot up some what.

 

And of course Mr Abbott will sing its praise because its the alternative the Julias NBN.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Telstra is going to use their existing allocation in the 1800 MHz band for 4G, so this is not an issue in Australia. For now anyway.

 

ACMA has earmarked the band just below GPS for mobile, space to earth. So something could take up position right next to GPS, but a properly designed satellite is much likely to drift off frequency than one of forty thousand cheap base station...

 

http://acma.gov.au/webwr/radcomm/frequency_planning/spectrum_plan/arsp-wc.pdf

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

If these new 4G towers are a lot more powerful, I cant see how they CANT be !

The cells in this network are a lot smaller, so the transmitters are, in fact, less powerful. But there will be a helluvalot more of them than current 3G.

 

And of course Mr Abbott will sing its praise because its the alternative the Julias NBN.

Well, Abbott is an idiot, on this subject anyway. He is entitled to his opinion we shouldn't spend the money on the NBN. However, anyone who thinks that having just about every household in a suburb on wireless is going to a) work and b) is viable alternative to fibre, is an idiot. Or at least ignorant of the laws of physics and economics.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Cell sizes for "LTE" depend upon both the frequency band and the "occupancy", so in regional areas using the 900MHz band, cell sizes can range from 5Km to 100Km depending on population density, but in cities, the SHF bands (Telstra has announced that it will use the 1.8GHz spectrum that it already licenses, for its capital cities roll-out this year.) are used to serve cells as small as 1Km. That is why there will be so many towers in cities.

 

.... However, anyone who thinks that having just about every household in a suburb on wireless is going to a) work and b) is viable alternative to fibre, is an idiot. Or at least ignorant of the laws of physics and economics.

Ok... I'll wade in with an NBN opinion...

 

I agree with Bas from a technical perspective, but blanketing the whole nation with fibre and banning the use of current viable networks to try and prop up the business case is bad economic policy.

 

"Fibre to the home", "Fibre to the Curb" and other physical designs based on fibre networking have always been options, but nobody could make the business case work, so that is why we got HFC (Hybrid Fibre Co-ax) networks... and even that exhibited poor policy in having two companies spend $4bn a piece to cover substantially the same territory in just a few capital cities.

 

The NBN plan bans use of the existing HFC networks, so effectively triplicating the network 9in those areas), albeit with a more modern, more capable one.

 

Does everyone actually need 100Mbps or 1,000Mbps Internet access? Of course not.

 

Could businesses benefit from Internet access at higher data rates than currently available.... depends on the business, the solutions available and whether the business can (a) afford them, and (b) trusts them.

 

Actually, I don't think Mr Abbot is as silly as portrayed. He isn't against the NBN, just because it is the ALP's plan, but rather because nobody knows what it will cost, either to implement, or to use, and whether uptake will actually pay for it. Perhaps it should be implemented in a different way. Not going away from fibre altogether, but putting the bandwidth where it is needed and using other viable technologies where it makes sense.

 

Of course we already have a nationally available broadband network. It is provided by various ISPs using multiple technologies and it isn't ubiquitous. If you think the NBN will be delivered to every household... that's like the "no child will live in poverty" promise of the Hawke Labour Government, but that's the spin being put out there!

 

The whole thing smacks of "build it and they will come"... Remember the movie? :peepwall:

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Does everyone actually need 100Mbps or 1,000Mbps Internet access? Of course not.

Speed is a red herring in the discussion. The NBN isn't about increasing my 16 Mbps to 100 Mbps. It is about my next door neighbour, who cannot get any broadband at home because the number of ports on our local RIM is exhausted. Me going to 100 Mb (and a more reliable, lower latency connection, I might add) is just a bonus.

And like him many others, who get none, or are struggling on 1.5mbps or less because that's all their RIMs provide. And this is in high-density metro suburbs.

 

So it seems that there isn't a business case for ADSL either in many places either. Or HFC. Or WiMAX. If there was, these would have been built.

 

Not a single operator seems to have built anything in anything other than green fields estates in the past decade.* Believing that commercial operator will at some point start filling these gaps will be like expecting pigs to fly one day. Something needs to be done.

 

I am not saying the NBN in its current form is a great plan, it is just the lesser of various evils.

 

Edit: * by that I mean anything significantly expanding availability. iiNet, Internode, Optus, etc. placing their own DSLAMs in the same Telstra exchange is great for competition, but doesn't increase the number of people that can get ADSL.

 

 

[Aussie Steve]

Your right there Bass, I currently cant get ADSL2 unless I go with Telstra.

 

My ISP can only give me 1.5 ADSL. So much for competion.

 

Even though I live at Katoomba, ( which used to be classed as a Country area) I pay Sydney Metro prices for insurance, rego,and even parking fees at Penrith Shopping centre (we used to be able to get it for free when we showed our licsence)

 

But my ISP say we,re regional and they dont supply ADSL2 to Regional Sydney.

 

Yet they do for Bathurst. An hour west of us.

 

I,m confused, are we country or metro :ne_nau:

 

So we,ll probably be lucky to get anything faster or better than we have currently, if at all.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

the problem with wireless is you get a large number of transient devices which disrupt the quality of service. fixed line is the best

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Steve, put your phone number into the checker at http://internode.on.net/

 

They are the only ISP able to re-sell every Telstra ADSL2 port in Australia and do so at great prices. Plus they're probably the best ISP in the country. (Which is likely because many in senior management are pilots!)

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

..The NBN isn't about increasing my 16 Mbps to 100 Mbps. It is about my next door neighbour, who cannot get any broadband at home because the number of ports on our local RIM is exhausted....

On the other hand, if there weren't alternatives on (or over) the horizon, perhaps they would expand the local RIM. Every technology has its limitations as well as its viable lifetime from a technology evolution, and thus a commercial viability perspective. ADSL also has a limitation in terms of adjacent pair interference in the cables, so cannot be put down every pair, or even most of them. Now the NBN has been announced, I'd expect a further drop in new provisioning activity.

The "NBN" may not be any better. Will every house get a fibre or will they run fibre to the estate and then use a switch to fan out into local blown fibre* to subscribing homes? Will there be enough straws for the capacity of the estate? or enough switch ports? Or a big enough cabinet to house the switches, power supplies and fibre terminations?

 

Inevitably there will be people who don't get coverage... just like the "97% coverage marketing with mobile coverage. Will they really run 20Km to 50Km of fibre to serve half a dozen farms or less?

 

I think coverage will always be multi-modal in the Australian geography and money would be better spent to subsidise provision of a solution to those who have none, than duplicating existing delivery. That is a genuine role of government, to do things that are needed, but are not commercially viable.

 

And like him many others, who get none, or are struggling on 1.5mbps or less because that's all their RIMs provide. And this is in high-density metro suburbs.

So it seems that there isn't a business case for ADSL either in many places either. Or HFC. Or WiMAX. If there was, these would have been built.

 

Not a single operator seems to have built anything in anything other than green fields estates in the past decade.* Believing that commercial operator will at some point start filling these gaps will be like expecting pigs to fly one day. Something needs to be done.

 

...

In part this was due to squabbles over duct occupancy and availability (HFC), but in the ADSL case it can be for many reasons... availability of space at the Exchange (although with many of them all but empty due to shrinking equipment size, this is hard to justify), cable quality, adjacent pair interference, signal loss over distance....Something that has encouraged implementation in new estates is that the developer is required to put in all the physical infrastructure including cables. New cables, smaller blocks, higher service density translates into lower delivery cost.

 

That is where, in part, the newer wireless delivery over 3G and 4G will help fill gaps in service delivery areas, particularly in cities, but also in part in regional areas where cable distances and quality preclude ADSL and fibre is also unlikely in the future. For some people, this will be all the access they need.

 

BTW, I use 1.5Mbps ADSL at home, having moved from 10Mbps HFC in the city, and this is posted from a laptop tethered to the 3G network through my phone (gee, its heaps better than dial-up, even if SSH does drop out fairly often, due to marginal signal.)

 

* Blown fibre involves the reticulation of hollow tubes (straws) down the streets to each house and then when someone wants to subscribe, a fibre is blown through the tube (one fibre per straw) using compressed air.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

ADSL is limited to about 5 kms of copper around each exchange. Fibre can go a lot further dependent on what sort of light frequency and repeaters you use, you can't use repeaters on ADSL. One of the ways NBN co will make money is by selling off the old Telstra exchanges which the fibre will make redundant...

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

On the other hand, if there weren't alternatives on (or over) the horizon, perhaps they would expand the local RIM.

This has been an issue for years, well before the possibility of an NBN was uttered. Telstra (the only one who could take action) couldn't be bothered. Yes, they were probably hoping those people would get onto NextG at home. But NextG was always going to be inferior and more expensive to for customers but more profitable for Telstra and the only way Telstra could get away with it is because they monopolised the exchanges, cables and RIMs.

 

ADSL also has a limitation in terms of adjacent pair interference in the cables, so cannot be put down every pair, or even most of them.

The RIM I am on is fed by a 100-pair copper cable from the exchange for ADSL only. (phone is from the RIM) And since my neighbour can't get on, that means every single pair has ADSL on it. I get 16 Mb just over a km from the exchange and its rock-solid. How many pairs do would you have to bundle together closely before it becomes an issue?

 

Now the NBN has been announced, I'd expect a further drop in new provisioning activity.

No doubt.

 

Will every house get a fibre or will they run fibre to the estate and then use a switch to fan out into local blown fibre* to subscribing homes? Will there be enough straws for the capacity of the estate? or enough switch ports? Or a big enough cabinet to house the switches, power supplies and fibre terminations?

The chosen technology is GPON, which really means 1 fibre port in the exchange for every 64-128 premises connected. So the space requirements are much less than you have now. So will power requirements as just a bit of light is injected at the exchange for 1 fibre; the rest of the splitting is purely passive optical.

 

Will they really run 20Km to 50Km of fibre to serve half a dozen farms or less?

Unlikely, those will be served by satellite. If you go live out in the sticks, that's the choice you make...

 

better spent to subsidise provision of a solution to those who have none, than duplicating existing delivery. That is a genuine role of government, to do things that are needed, but are not commercially viable.

Although I agree, can you imagine the incredible abuse of government funds into the coffers of Telstra if the government decided to give it cash to upgrade RIMs? They would just use it to solidify their monopoly, like they do now; making it painful for others to install equipment into exchanges. They have been saying for a decade that nobody else can get into my local exchange because it is "full" while at they same time they have multiplied their own DSLAM ports many times.

 

Something that has encouraged implementation in new estates is that the developer is required to put in all the physical infrastructure including cables.

True, although they rarely do that themselves, if ever. Telstra ends up putting in the copper to satisfy the universal service obligations. However Telstra has to share the copper with competitors, so what happens now? Telstra PAYS the developer to allow it to install just Telstra fibre and has a monopoly in the estate as since there is no copper, they don't have to share.

 

That is where, in part, the newer wireless delivery over 3G and 4G will help fill gaps in service delivery areas, particularly in cities, but also in part in regional areas where cable distances and quality preclude ADSL and fibre is also unlikely in the future.

I agree for rural areas; but in cities or metro there is no reason to fall back to wireless.

 

For some people, this will be all the access they need.

For the current person that lives in the house, for sure. But houses have a habit of changing occupants and thus requirements.

I am convinced drastic action needs to be taken to break the Telstra monopoly that is holding ordinary Australian households to ransom and keep them from getting good service. I don't care if it costs a lot of money up front and may not pay for itself by user fees alone. Last I checked, road tax has not paid for the Princess highway either. But it was built anyway because of the overall great economic benefits it has long term.

 

 

[winsor68]

"I am convinced drastic action needs to be taken to break the Telstra monopoly that is holding ordinary Australian households to ransom and keep them from getting good service. I don't care if it costs a lot of money up front and may not pay for itself by user fees alone. Last I checked, road tax has not paid for the Princess highway either. But it was built anyway because of the overall great economic benefits it has long term."

 

Exactly!!! Well said and hard to speak against logic. Something needs to be done and drastically.

 

 

[flying dog]

Ok, skipping to the end of the posts.... The "problem" is that most of society are now expecting/demanding wireless phone/mobile coverage everywhere. Alas probably half of these twits are also complaining about these antennas being next to the school where THEIR kids go. Put them next to schools where our kids are NOT attending. The old NIMBY attitude.

 

 

[Yenn]

I can't understand all this, all the acronyms, or are they pseudonyms are just gobbledegook. What I do know is that whatever is promised we will not get it outside of the big cities. All the hype about mobile phones covering 95% of the country is bull. Mobile phones will not work at my house whoch is about 10 miles from Gladstone. Next year I believe they are going to cut off the analog TV, I tried a set top box a couple of times and it doesn't work. I doubt that the NBN will get to me and if it does it will cost more than I already pay.

 

Don't forget Change is Guaranteed, Progress is optional.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Does everyone actually need 100Mbps or 1,000Mbps Internet access? Of course not.l:

David

 

The problem with your statement is its unbound by time. If the question was, does anyone need it now then the answer is very few. If the question is in a year, 2 years 5 years down track, on infrastructure where the fibre has the potential to last 10+ times that then I'm much less confident that your answer is correct and can almost guarentee that at the back end of its useful life your statement will be wrong.

 

Of course if the infrastrucutre isnt put in place then the answer is likely to always be no.

 

Those that think wireless is an answer are sufering from marketitis a serious disease where people foresake science for marketing claims that align to what they want to believe.

 

Wireless is a fantastic alternate for nothing but a very poor alternate for a fixed line.

 

The other point worth making is that laying fibre is at present the very best form of futurproofing you can do. There is simply nothing that has as much future potential in the comms market. The boxes at the end of the fibre may well be changed many times over but the fibre is likely to be as useful and unlimiting in 20yrs as it is today.

 

BTW when we are estimating costs for the "last mile costs" for a new fibre based connection to a new business location for the company I work for in Australia we work on $100k per Km no doubt there are economies of scale and the $100k is rough its proved over time to a reasonable benchmark

 

Andy

 

 

[kaz3g]

The cells in this network are a lot smaller, so the transmitters are, in fact, less powerful. But there will be a helluvalot more of them than current 3G.

Well, Abbott is an idiot, on this subject anyway. He is entitled to his opinion we shouldn't spend the money on the NBN. However, anyone who thinks that having just about every household in a suburb on wireless is going to a) work and b) is viable alternative to fibre, is an idiot. Or at least ignorant of the laws of physics and economics.

Thanks, Bas for the info. I had also read the AvWeb media and was starting to worry when I heard telstra's recent announcement.

 

Yes, hard to beat the velocity of light with an overloaded wireless spectrum...

 

kaz

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

All the hype about mobile phones covering 95% of the country is bull.

Ah, but they never, ever actually claim "95% of the country"; they always say: "95% of the POPULATION"! Big difference!

 

I doubt that the NBN will get to me and if it does it will cost more than I already pay.

I reckon it will, what technology it is going to be - fibre, satellite or wireless - is the question. (most likely fibre or wireless, I would say for you) It's unlikely to cost more than what you have now.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Actually in Qld the largest fibre network in australia has already been installed and every day its getting bigger and bigger. The problem is forethought from govt service providers. Ergon Energy which covers the whole of Qld except for the southeast corner of highest population of the state. Ergon complete electrical transmission system combines with Powerlink and every single transmisson wireset has fibre in it. I am also told for the past 5 years or more every overhead service to a business or house from the pole has fibre in it so there actually is a lot of the infrastructure already in place in regional Qld...I am pretty sure this has not happened anywhere else in Australia. I know first hand that Ergon have been in discussions with service providers to use their network. Their network is in use every day all over the state as all command and control for Ergon and Powerlink is done over this network and has been so for many many years every single substation is monitored and controlled by their fibre network

 

Mark

 

 

[Spin]

"I am convinced drastic action needs to be taken to break the Telstra monopoly that is holding ordinary Australian households to ransom and keep them from getting good service. I don't care if it costs a lot of money up front and may not pay for itself by user fees alone. Last I checked, road tax has not paid for the Princess highway either. But it was built anyway because of the overall great economic benefits it has long term."Exactly!!! Well said and hard to speak against logic. Something needs to be done and drastically.

I'll agree insofar as we need to break out of the current situation with Telstra stifling development, however whether NBN is the answer is something I am less convinced of - govts historically have a poor record with quasi commercial ventures such as this and I don't see this situation being any better.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Wow Kyle. That was pretty far thinking. I'm pretty sure command / control in Victoria is through the actual power lines.

 

 

[Aussie Steve]

Thx Bass, very helpful,not sure if Internode can actually give me ADSL2 until I actually submit an application for an a/c.

 

They DO say that they have ADSL2 in Katoomba so thats more than I have at the moment.

 

there is a lot of fine print that basically says its up to Telstra if we can actually get it too you and even then we cant garantee consistant speed.

 

This subject has turned out to be most informative.

 

We have a very wide and learned constituantcy (?)

 

Thanks again