Home » Issues » Recent Articles:

VDSL2 Vectoring and G.Fast: “Pixie Dust” or Pathway to Gigabit Copper?

Phone companies looking for a cheap way to increase broadband speeds are turning away from fiber optics and towards advanced forms of DSL that don’t bring cost objections from shareholders.

Whether your provider is AT&T or an ISP in Europe or Australia, financial pressure to improve broadband on the cheap is fueling research to wring the last kilobit out of decades-old copper phone wiring.

Alcatel-Lucent suggests VDSL2 Vectoring is one such technology that can enable download speeds up to 100Mbps using noise-cancelling technology to suppress interference.

Print

But the advice doesn’t impress fiber optic fans who suggest any reliance on deteriorating copper phone lines simply postpones an inevitable fiber upgrade that could come at a higher cost down the road.

VDSL2 Vectoring and G.Fast are only as good as the copper wiring that extends to each customer. Up to 45 percent of North American wire pairs are in some state of disrepair.

VDSL2 Vectoring and G.Fast are only as good as the copper wiring that extends to each customer. Up to 45 percent of North American wire pairs are in some state of disrepair.

Vectoring has been described as “pixie dust” by Australia’s former Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Conroy was overseeing Australia’s switch to fiber service as part of the National Broadband Network. But a change in government has scrapped those plans in favor of a cheaper fiber to the neighborhood broadband upgrade advocated by the new Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that resembles AT&T’s U-verse.

“Malcolm can sprinkle pixie dust around and call it vectoring and he can do all that sort of stuff but he cannot guarantee upload speeds,” Conroy told Turnbull.

As with all forms of DSL, speed guarantees are extremely difficult to provide because the technology only performs as well as the copper wiring that connects a neighborhood fiber node to a customer’s home or office. Upload speeds are, in practical terms, significantly slower than download speeds with VDSL2. Turnbull expected download and upload speeds on Australia’s VDSL2 network to be around a ratio of 4:1, which means a customer who has a download speed of 25Mbps per second would receive an upload speed of around 6Mbps.

In the lab, VDSL2 Vectoring delivers promising results, with speeds as high as 100Mbps on the download side. DSL advocates are excited about plans to boost those speeds much higher, as much as 1,000Mbps, using G.Fast technology now under development and expected in 2015. VDSL2 Vectoring and G.Fast both require operators to minimize copper line lengths for best results. Unfortunately, dilapidated copper networks won’t work well regardless of the line length, and with many telephone companies cutting back upkeep budgets for the dwindling number of customers still using landlines, an estimated 15-45 percent of all line pairs are now in some state of disrepair.

Assuming lab-like conditions, G.Fast can deliver 500Mbps over copper lines less than 100 meters long and 200Mbps over lines between 100 and 200 meters in length.

G.Fast also allows for closer symmetrical speeds, so upload rates can come close or match download speeds.

This cabinet houses the connection between the fiber optic cable and the copper phone wiring extending to dozens of customers.

This cabinet houses the connection between a fiber optic cable and copper phone wiring.

Providers prefer the copper-fiber approach primarily for cost reasons. There are estimates deploying a G.Fast-capable VDSL service to a home would cost around 70 percent less than fiber to the home service. Workers would not need to enter customer homes either, offering less-costly self-install options.

Telekom Austria and Swisscom are among providers committed to launching the technology. Both countries are mountainous and have many rural areas to serve. Fiber rich providers are also looking at the technology for rural customers too costly or too remote to service with fiber.

Critics question the real world performance of both VDSL2 Vectoring and G.Fast on compromised copper landline networks. Decades of repairs, deteriorating insulation, corroded wires, water ingress, and RF interference can all conspire to deliver a fraction of promised speeds.

Many critics also point to the required aggressive deployment of fiber/VDSL cabinets — unsightly and occasionally loud “lawn refrigerators” that sit either in the right of way in front of homes or hang from nearby utility poles. To get the fastest possible speeds, one cabinet may be needed for every four or five homes, depending on lot size. Australia’s VDSL network, without Vectoring or G.Fast requires at least 70,000 cabinets, each powered by the electric grid and temporary backup batteries that keep services running for 1-2 hours in the event of a power failure. The batteries need to be decommissioned periodically and, in some instances, have caused explosions.

The costs of electric consumption, backup batteries, infrastructure, and maintenance of copper lines must be a part of the cost equation before dismissing fiber to the home as too expensive.

How Overland Park Blew Google Fiber; Bureaucratic Ineptitude Stalls Project Indefinitely

lucyAfter nine months of foot dragging-negotiations between Overland Park officials and Google Fiber, a last-minute protest by a city council member over an indemnification clause that turned out to be insignificant was the last straw.

Now residents of Overland Park are off Google’s upgrade list for gigabit broadband indefinitely.

Service providers often face a minefield negotiating with local governments over issues like zoning, performance guidelines, franchise agreements, and minimizing disruption to the community. Some also face confusion about technology or a lack of understanding that infrastructure projects require careful scheduling and seasonal construction limitations.

In Overland Park, it was “all of the above” say infuriated residents who watched the fiber project slip away at an Oct. 14 city council meeting when lawyers representing Google requested an indefinite continuance.

“Clearly Google was saying to Overland Park and other cities: if you make this process too difficult for us, we will pick up our ball and go play somewhere else,” said Overland Park resident Robert Walch.

Walch said city council members appeared shocked when Google’s representative broke the news. Just a month earlier, council members including Terry Goodman, Curt Skoog, and Richard Collins seemed intent to pelt Google with a range of objections and unusual questions that suggested a lack of basic knowledge about fiber broadband.

Phillip Dampier

Phillip Dampier

According to those in attendance, Skoog in particular seemed far out of his depth, questioning if 1,000/1,000Mbps was fast enough to provide connections for 6-12 computer terminals inside a local school.

Council member Park Lyons patronizingly told Google representatives Overland Park was one of the best cities in the country and he was glad Google recognized as much.

“There is so much excitement about Google Fiber, and I know people think we should blindly go forward, but I think we need to look at this in a dispassionate way and have due diligence,” Lyons explained.

As Google’s representatives continued to field questions about the project even as the 2013 construction season began to wind down, Skoog sensed Google’s growing exasperation, finally asking at an earlier meeting if they were prepared to walk away over what Skoog characterized as a “minor detail.”

The answer, apparently, was yes, much to the surprise of a stunned city council witnessing a privately funded, multi-million dollar broadband improvement project collapsing before their eyes. Damage control for exposed council members likely to face the wrath of voters began immediately, starting with a symbolic, but largely empty resolution expressing the council’s profound interest in the fiber project they just buried.

“It’s disappointing because it would have been nice to have in the schools and the libraries and stuff. I know that the Internet is really spotty at the school,” Katie Lehn, an Overland Park mother told KCTV-5.

“Overland Park made it really, really hard for Google, and Google has a lot of other cities and towns to work with,” noted Walch. “I have to say, if you’re on Overland Park Council now, you have to know that this is your last term.”

overland parkIndustry observers agree with Walch.

“Google maybe wanted to send a louder message that they wanted faster response from other communities to come,” said Donna Jaegers, a telecommunications analyst for D.A. Davidson & Co. “A month delay would not be enough to put off a design like that.”

“Google is sending a negotiating message to any other city: You take our terms, or we’re going to walk,” said Steve Effros, an industry analyst who headed the Cable Telecommunications Association for two decades.

Effros told the Associated Press Google was obviously making an example out of Overland Park, while getting special treatment from other nearby communities that incumbent cable and phone companies never got.

The message that Google is willing to walk away from lucrative, upscale communities like Overland Park over bureaucratic headaches has an impact on both Google and local government. Overland Park is an upscale community of 176,000 within metro Kansas City. The community’s median household income is more than $66,500 a year — excellent prospects to sign up for Google service.

blew itBut now Overland Park will have to wait even as neighborhoods around the community get the fiber optic service first.

“Overland Park wants Google Fiber,” said Overland Park Mayor Carl Gerlach. “The city council is ready to sign on the dotted line. … We’re willing to wait as long as it takes.”

Google isn’t ready to forgive and forget just yet, and communities like Overland Park cannot say they were never warned.

Milo Medin, Google’s vice president of access services, told the media in May that Google was picking communities that make their life easier as the fiber infrastructure is installed.

“In general, we go where it’s easy to build,” Medin said. “If you make it hard for me to build, and there are other places where it’s easy to build, I will probably go to those other places.”

Six months later, nothing has changed.

“We need to refocus our energy and our resources on the communities that are waiting for fiber,” said Google spokeswoman Jenna Wandres.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City Overland Park on Hold With Google 10-25-13.mp4[/flv]

KCTV in Kansas City reports Overland Park residents are unhappy Google Fiber is popping up everywhere, but not in Overland Park.  (3 minutes)

Time Warner Cable Doubles Premium Broadband Speeds in Los Angeles, New York, Hawaii

Phillip Dampier October 29, 2013 Broadband Speed, Competition, Data Caps 1 Comment

timewarner twcTime Warner Cable customers in Los Angeles, New York, and Hawaii subscribed to the company’s top 50/5Mbps Ultimate speed tier will get a free upgrade to 100/5Mbps between now and the end of this year.

“Residential customers in Los Angeles who subscribe to our Ultimate 50 tier are being automatically upgraded to Ultimate 100 at no extra cost,” said Time Warner’s Andrew Russell. “Ultimate 50 residential customers in New York City and Hawaii will be upgraded by year’s end. By early 2014, all customers in these markets will have access to Ultimate 100, with more TWC markets to follow next year.”

“Consumers are adding more and more connected devices into their digital lifestyle,” said Steve Cook, general manager of Time Warner Cable residential Internet. “These new ultra-fast Internet speeds are designed to satisfy their growing demand to stream, download and connect simultaneously across multiple devices.”

Time Warner Cable announced several speed upgrades over the last year, but it still remains the least aggressive major cable operator in the speed category. Among the largest five cable operators, Time Warner Cable’s premium speed tiers are the slowest, with top upstream speeds of just 5Mbps and a maximum downstream speed of 50Mbps for most. But Time Warner Cable has no compulsory usage caps or consumption billing.

Over the last year, Time Warner Cable increased speeds for all but their Extreme customers (30/5Mbps), the only plan to have not seen any major speed boost in most markets since being standardized as an entry level DOCSIS 3 tier.

Time Warner also announced a speed improvement for their budget-conscious Lite tier, now 1/1Mbps in most markets.

Priced at $14.99 per month, the new offering will deliver 2/1Mbps — adequate for basic web browsing, e-mail and limited multimedia use — and becomes available nationwide beginning Nov. 4.

“We’re making our entry-level product even better and more affordable for the casual Internet user and cost-conscious consumer,” said Cook. “At both ends of our speed options and everything in between, we’re focused on giving our customers the best experience at the best value.”

Time Warner Cable will now offer most customers seven different speed tiers, all unlimited use (except when opting in to usage limited plans in return for a discount):

  • Lite: 2/1Mbps
  • Basic: 3/1Mbps
  • Standard: 15/1Mbps
  • Turbo: 20/2Mbps
  • Extreme: 30/5Mbps
  • Ultimate: 100/5Mbps

Millenicom Kills, Then Revives Unlimited Wireless Plan Rural America Loves

millenicomAn unlimited wireless broadband plan popular with rural Americans and traveling RV owners has been revived after customers were informed unlimited access was going to be unavailable after Oct. 31.

Millenicom resells wireless broadband service on the Sprint and Verizon wireless networks. Millenicom’s $79.99 Unlimited Plan had no contract requirement and customers were allowed to bring their own wireless device.

Millenicom bucked the trend by continuing to find ways to offer unlimited access plans even as wireless companies began imposing usage caps. Sprint’s decision to cut service to a third-party reseller forced Millenicom to send an e-mail notice on Oct. 18 to unlimited use customers:

Sprint has discontinued service to our gateway provider, unfortunately that means we can no longer provide the Unlimited or BYOD Plan to you.

We anticipate your plan to be discontinued by Sprint by the end of this month. We can offer a couple of options for you available through October 31, 2013.

  1. Continue your service through the BMI.net Unlimited/BYOD Plan. They have agreed to honor your service through the end of this month at no charge with an ongoing monthly service fee of $79.99;
  2. Switch your service to the Millenicom 20GB Hotspot Plan. We will provide a Novatel MiFi 4620LE with activation and shipping free of charge.

Given this is out of our control, we recommend that you act on this at your earliest convenience.

We deeply regret this circumstance.

Millenicom

The decision would have had an immediate impact on rural customers who cannot get cable broadband or DSL. Many Millenicom customers receive wireless broadband over 3G, 4G, and/or LTE networks, depending on reception quality, the carrier, and what services are available on the nearest cell tower.

Just a few days later, the company reversed course, at least for current customers:

The upstream carrier is reconsidering their decision with our gateway. At this time it appears the accounts will be allowed to continue.

We apologize for any confusion or frustration and thank you for your patience; we will immediately provide updates as information is provided.

At the moment, Millenicom’s website still advertises three plans, although the Unlimited Plan details are now missing and might no longer be an option for new customers:

plans

(Verizon Wireless Network) Hotspot Plan – No contract – Nationwide coverage (Check coverage)

  • 3G/4G Novatel MiFi Hotspot
  • 20 gigabytes of data
  • Connect up to 10 WiFi-enabled devices

The 3G/4G Hotspot Plan is a no-contract service that allows for 20 gigabytes of data transfer for $69.99/month. The service automatically allows for up to 10 wireless devices to connect simultaneously and is backwards compatible to 3G in the event the device is outside the coverage area.  The service supports 802.11 b, g and n and is also VPN compatible. Initial charges require $99.99 device purchase fee, $49.99 activation fee and $15.00 shipping fee as well as the prorated balance of the first month service fee.

(Sprint Network) Unlimited Plan – No contract – Nationwide Coverage – Plan Details Missing – May only be available for current customers ($79.99)

  • Netgear 341U USB Device
  • Unlimited data
  • 3G/4G/LTE

Bring Your Own Device Plan – No contract – Nationwide Coverage

  • Bring Your Own Device
  • Soft capped unlimited data*
  • 3G, 4G, LTE

The Millenicom BYOD mobile broadband account is a no contract service that allows for nationwide coverage using the clients own mobile broadband device. There is a one-time set up fee of $49.99 to activate the account. The BYOD service is for personal and family use and is not to be used for commercial purposes or as a public WiFi or broadcast to multi-dwelling units or any other extraordinary circumstance. Usage over 50 gigabytes in one month will alert our investigative team. Devices usable with this plan: Customer must own a non-active mobile broadband device of the appropriate upstream carrier (email [email protected] for clarification). We highly recommend you contact us before signing up for this type of account to ensure your device is compatible. (*-Soft cap of 50GB)

Customers report Millenicom has been a reliable reseller for years and is tech-savvy about finding ways to deliver rural wireless broadband to customers without onerous usage caps. However, their services are only as good as your cell reception. Sprint’s 3G network is notoriously oversold and slow in urban areas but might still be useful in rural communities. Sprint’s older Clear WiMAX 4G network rarely offers coverage in rural areas. But rural residents are in luck: Sprint’s rollout of 4G LTE service seems to run against the grain of most wireless providers. Sprint is upgrading rural and small city towers for LTE service before many larger urban areas get the next generation 4G service.

“Anything is better than satellite,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Dan Gallo. He has been a loyal Millenicom customer in rural Virginia for several years, where Verizon DSL is still not available and cable companies are nowhere to be found. “That Sprint tower next to the highway three minutes from my house delivers a solid signal, so there is civilization here.”

Thanks also to Stop the Cap! reader Daniel alerted us to the story.

[flv width=”204″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Jeff Schefke Rural internet setup 6-21-13.mp4[/flv]

Jeff Schefke shows off his involved Millenicom setup and illustrates the complexities of getting rural wireless broadband from Sprint or Verizon Wireless through Millenicom. Schefke reports normal speeds are up to 2.5/1Mbps, which is far better than the 120kbps he used to get on his phone. (4 minutes)

BBC: The Great American Broadband Ripoff; Customers Pay 3x More than Europe, 5x More than Korea

cost_broadband_around_the_worldBroadband in the United States costs far more than in other countries — nearly three times as much as in the UK and France, and at least five times more than South Korea, according to BBC News.

The New America Foundation compared hundreds of available packages around the world and found customers in America’s largest cities are getting the biggest bills.

Customers in San Francisco with a discounted low-medium speed bundle including broadband pay $99 a month. A near-equivalent package costs London residents $38. New Yorkers get some savings from Time Warner and Cablevision facing down Verizon FiOS. But it isn’t enough. In the Big Apple, a promotional bundle averages $70 a month. “C’est la vie,” say Parisians. They only pay $35 for about the same. Even Washington, D.C. residents, which include the country’s most powerful politicians, pay Comcast its $68 asking price. In Seoul, South Korea, a comparable offer costs $15 a month.

High asking prices don’t buy better service. According to a report by the OECD issued over the summer, the United States ranks among the worst in terms of broadband-only pricing. With an average price of $90 a month for 45Mbps service, the U.S. ranked 30th out of 33 countries. Add phone and television service and the price spikes to around $200.

The BBC pondered why there is such a disparity in pricing. The answer was easy to spot: the lack of true competition.

countries_with_high_speed_broadband“Americans pay so much because they don’t have a choice,” said Susan Crawford, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama on science, technology and innovation policy. “We deregulated high-speed Internet access 10 years ago and since then we’ve seen enormous consolidation and monopolies, so left to their own devices, companies that supply Internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight.”

Although Americans can name the largest and deep pocketed providers — Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cablevision, CenturyLink, Cox, and Frontier — most cannot choose from more than one cable provider and one telephone company. Comcast does not compete against Time Warner and AT&T does not compete against Verizon, except in the wireless world where both companies offer near-identical plans and pricing.

Comcast is quite the gouger in San Francisco.

Bay area customers told the BBC they get bills ranging from $120 a month for television and broadband (not including a $7 modem rental fee) to $200 a month for phone, TV, and Internet access. That same cable company is now testing a 300GB monthly usage cap on broadband in several American cities.

In contrast South Korea offers ubiquitous free Wi-Fi letting customers avoid usage charges. Home broadband is fast and cheap. Most pay $20 a month for 100Mbps.

Digging deeper, the BBC found clues why robust broadband competition delivers savings for consumers in Europe and Asia while Americans pay more.

Rick Karr, who made a PBS documentary in the UK comparing broadband costs at home and abroad, said the critical moment came when the British regulator Ofcom forced British Telecom to open its network and allow other companies to sell broadband over its copper telephone wires. In the United States, regulators never forced cable operators to open their networks, and after a 6-3 Supreme Court decision upheld the cable industry’s insistence it need not share access with competitors, telephone companies quickly called for parity.

Unlike in the UK, where broadband providers can compete using BT's network to reach customers, a Supreme Court decision upheld the cable industry's right to keep competitors off its cable broadband network.

A 2005 Supreme Court decision upheld the cable industry’s right to keep competitors off its cable broadband network.

Some argue the ruling promotes more competition by provoking competitors to build their own networks. But current conventional wisdom among the investment community teaches one cable and one phone company is considered good enough. Additional providers would erode the standing of all and force price cutting to compete.

There are exceptions. Although Google’s fiber to the home service has drawn national attention for its inexpensive gigabit fiber broadband network ($70 for broadband-only service), at least 150 cities are served by the public sector — co-op or publicly owned utility companies that offer broadband, often delivered over fiber optic networks.

Those networks often charge considerably less than the incumbent cable operator or phone company, a fact that has driven many privately run operators to seek legislative bans on community broadband.

In response to the report, telecommunications companies avoided the topic of prices and focused instead on value for money and the future.

Lowell McAdam, CEO of Verizon Communications, said Europe was replete with a decade of underinvestment, leaving many with less than 30Mbps service. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association said it was difficult to make international comparisons on price and Scott Cleland, part of the industry-funded NetCompetition website claimed although people may pay higher bills, they can at least choose among phone, cable, wireless or satellite.

“We may be paying more in your eyes today but we are building for tomorrow and the long-term,” said Cleland.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!