Rolling DSL and Wireless Access Out In One Swoop

B1ackFa1c0n writes: "Finally those of us in telecom valley (Petaluma/Santa Rosa, CA) are getting DSL with a twist... Vista Broadband is beginning to roll out DSL to those of us beyond the SBC limit. Rumours have it that every home that installs gets a wireless router and an antenna on the roof - effectively expanding Vista's wireless network at the same time. If enough people sign up, this would allow seamless wireless coverage for the whole area *at a profit* to Vista."

Comments

Shared bandwidth

[crow]

One of the great things about DSL is that you have your own connection to the ISP, as opposed to cable modems, which share bandwidth within each neighborhood. With this scheme, it looks like they are using each subscriber as a relay, so your bandwitch is shared with anyone upstream from you. This can be good for business, but not so great for consumers.

Re:Shared bandwidth

[RC514]

Yes, but typically a DSL connection is not using the maximum possible bandwith. They probably use a fixed part of the bandwith for the paying customer and any excess bandwith is allocated to the wireless access point.

Re:Shared bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes with DSL it is true you have your own dedicated connection, but that usually only goes as far as a local collection point - it certainly is not a dedicated amount of bandwidth right to the ISP, nor to the Internet.

The only difference with cable is the proximity to the individual customer at which the sharing begins. Peak usage times on DSL introduce just as much slowdown to the user with his "dedicated" pipe as they would to the Cable user with his "shared" pipe.

I understand that your point relates to the sharing forced up on the user by the reselling of the wireless access which is sure to come, but the shared/dedicated differentiation between DSL and Cable is already misunderstood enough by Joe Sixpack without this added complexity.

Re:Shared bandwidth

[GSloop]

[Pinhead alert]

Cable is shared bandwidth from the cable company CO or central office to the users on that local cable loop segment.

DSL is NOT - it's basically a PPP style connection from the CO to you.

Thus, your won't suffer from performance lag from other users in your segment.

Now, if the DSL is terminated in a ATM or Frame cloud that is saturated, you'll have to compete with those other requests from other customers to the SAME ISP.

If your ISP oversells too much, you can always switch ISP's, and then provided the new ISP doesn't oversell, the problem is fixed.

If you are on the same cable segment (cable modem here) and another group of users saturate the cable segment, the only solution is to blow up those users who are saturating your segment. Since you stand to do a long stint with Bubba in the local pen. for such an act of terrorism (Seig Heil Ashcroft!) it doesn't seem like such a great solution.

For these reasons, DSL has some significant advantages over cable.

Cheers!

Re:Shared bandwidth

[cdrudge]

It's all shared bandwidth if you look at the larger picture. With DSL, each person has a dedicated line to there house....but only from the CO. Once the line gets to the CO, then it is combined with many other subscribers and passed on to the fatter pipes. Several DSL subscribers can still suck most of the bandwidth. So what if you are guaranteed a 768/128 or whatever to the CO...it's beyond the CO that matters.

Cable does share the bandwith among the neighborhood, but it usually (or at least is suppose to be) partitioned off into smaller neighborhoods once one gets beyond the capacity.

See here for more of an explanation and other DSL/Cable myths. Yes it is from Cox cable, and yes the do have a vested interest in trying to get you to subscribe to cable service, so take it with a grain of salt. But for the most part it is true.

Re:Shared bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with your point about DSL and cable being lagged at the same points.

I have both DSL and cable connections at home. I'm 3k feet from my CO, wire-distance. My DSL is set to 5mbit down / 1mbit up. Cable is 2mbit down, 384k up.

In my neighborhood, there is a very high concentration of customers terminating on the local cable node. When I last spoke to a contact I have at the cable company, he said that there were over 4 thousand connections from residences to the node. That node is connected via a single 45 mbit ATM DS3 to a regional ATM concentrator, then to the main office, which connects to the net over a singe 45mbit DS3.

As for the DSL connections at the serving Central Office, mine currently has about 1100 DSL lines connected to the DSLAMs located there. Each DSLAM is connected to the local SONET ring by an individual 45mbit ATM DS3, which each then connect into an ATM concentrator, and from there to the main office, and out to the Net via dual 155mbit links.

Raw performance in off-peak times isn't applicable, due to the speed of both connections. But during peak times, I'm lucky to get 20k/sec on the cable link while downloading a test file from the cable company's FTP server. The same test on the DSL network yields about 450k/sec duting peak times. Accessing the internet yields similar results.

unsubscription

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

So do they like not let you unsubscribe because you'll be taking out a portion of their network?

or is there a claus that says that once the transmission tower is welded to your house/trailer it cant be taken down. ever.

Not a bad deal

[Restil]

It also kinda puts a sock in the mouth of those that complain about people "reselling" their bandwidth by offering up wireless access points. Now Vista does it themselves, its endorsed and they can maintain some control over it while still providing the same level of advantage to the customers that desire it.

Makes sense to me anyways.

-Restil

How Fat's the Pipe?

[Wintersmute]

I may be showing my ignorance here, but does this mean that each subscriber is going to be broadcasting WiFi to the neighborhood?

Doesn't this make the whole network more susceptible to wireless attackes by AirSnort and WEPcrack technologies?

Or am I on crack?

Re:How Fat's the Pipe?

[RC514]

If they do it in a responsible way, they split the bandwith (x MBit for the customer, rest for the WAP), but without sharing the broadcast domain. DSL modems usually have an ATM mode which could be used to create separate channels, guaranteeing QOS to the customer and keeping the wireless traffic away from his network socket.

Re:How Fat's the Pipe?

[RC514]

Ok, looks like the article is a little misleading. "Wireless coverage" is not really the goal of this approach, but merely the means to provide residential broadband internet access. It makes connecting distant customers feasible because up to 40 subscribers can be connected to one one "airhead", which is a special box connected to an uplink, which in turn can be either wired or wireless (but not through other airheads). The cost of installing an uplink can therefore be split among 40 customers, and because the "airhead" is so small, renting an office for hub hardware isn't necessary. This whole concept doesn't appear to be based on 802.11b at all.

Drive by hacking...

[yonnage]

Wireless DSL... Hmmmm, I wonder how soon until drive by cracking is a problem.

Gnutella, and now Broadband

[KenSentMe]

Interestingly enough, the technique they are using to "expand" their coverage area is remarkably similar to the distributed nature of peer-to-peer sharing networks, such as Gnutella.
I wonder how well it will scale. Will users' bandwidth drop as more and more customers in their area sign on, due to the heavy relaying of traffic?

This is not DSL

[jspayne]

This is not DSL, it is wireless broadband - probably not unlike the Nokia Rooftop system that Cringely mentioned not too long ago...

Jeff

A good test for Vista?

[Em Emalb]

linking their URL to slashdot. If they can't handle it, then maybe this won't be a good thing :)

As others have pointed out...

[GoRK]

This has absolutely nothing to do with DSL. A Tin can and string is closer to DSL than this.

A lot of fixed wireless companies (not just broadband data) call their services the wireless equivalent of the wireline alternative. Ie: Wireless Cable -- what a misnomer!

Some company says "Wireless DSL" and some stupid person posts it to slashdot as some sort of breakthrough idea. It's simply fixed wireless.

You can't sell DSL service "beyond SBC" unless you want to run your own CO's, which is not turning out to be very profitable for small companies to do. DSL only goes over copper wires and it only goes so far.

~GoRK

This is NOT DSL!

[SlashChick]

This is residential wireless of the same type that Sprint/Earthlink rolled out to several major cities. Check out their services page.

Residential wireless is neat, but only if you can't get DSL or a cable modem. The latency makes it problematic for fast-paced online games, but the download speed makes it ideal for web surfing. Also, wireless usually has a transfer limit -- in this company's case, it's 3GB-6GB a month (3GB for the lower-priced connections.) You have to watch your downloads.

It's a great idea if your only choice is dialup, and I'm glad to finally see a company recognize that this is a great service to those in flat areas that DSL/cable are not covering.

Don't assume 802.11

[Wesley Felter]

There are non-802.11 wireless systems out there that have different security properties.

Creative Use of Coffee Cans

[Goldenhawk]

If you're really concerned about sharing your new DSL line's bandwidth with a roof-top antenna, or you worry about security, but you don't want to (or cannot) cut the power cord, a coffee can over the antenna, or some tinfoil, would probably block enough of the signal to prevent any useful connections to YOUR rooftop, and divert those connections to a neighbor.

Amateur usage.

[bobdole369]

Does anybody have an definitive answer as to how these wireless devices stand on the FCC's "totem pole". I was under the impression that us ham radio operators (at least for the part of the spectrum we share with 802.11b, about 1/2 - 2/3 of the channels) were given a higher priority than the ISM unlicensed users. In fact my license gives me the ability to jam out 1500 watts with no limitation of ERP. So my spread spectrum 5 watt signal at 2.406 mhz sent through a 15db vertical is going to cause them at least a hiccup if they ever make it down to Florida. (my signal is audible enough to digipeat at 23 miles from my house. (yikes, too bad I can't make money off of it...)) What would happen if say a company wanted to use the same frequency my station is set to? In the past hams have usually been trod upon, as the primary users have priority. Does this actually mean they have to work around me for once?!