Member Info for Aus3009

Snooze - I do worry about your reading age?

The fact that I’m writing “at the risk of repeating myself “

Isn’t irony it’s, an admission on my part that I am repeating myself last couple of days.

I really think you need to stop looking for fault in every post I make. Apart from it is very weird, you’re making fool out of yourself & I’m starting to think you might need help, or get a girl / boyfriend or, at least something better to do with your time.

Fleccy - you just keep repeating the same old. Didn’t all the bullies on this board attack lil Rod for doing that?

I’d say, starlink probably can’t replace fixed broadband today, but who knows about the future?

At the risk of me keep repeating myself, is not nor has it ever been about “replacing”. All the alternative options to BT out there Should be viewed as disrupters from BT perspective

Collectively they don’t need to take all of BT’s network business they only need to take enough customers away from BT to adversely impact their investment strategy.

No Zi don’t think so, not yet anyway.

But the investment model and associated business plan is starting to look shakey.

Too much choice and too much competition might be spreading income for providers too thinly. The bigger the company, with the largest investment will always be impacted the most by an environment like this.

BT will have close to £18bln investment they need to claw back, losing connections like they are is not good news, I’ve seen reports could be 900,000 over last year alone. If true, I don’t know if it is, it’s something that needs immediate attention

Fleccy - your description of encoding waveforms to describe bit patterns is correct.

It explains perfectly why there is “no such “ thing as digital transmission. “Digital” being a vague concept where analogue signals are encoded to represent patterns of bits (1’s or zero’s ) (on or offs)

Encoding waveforms so that a particular amplitude / phase or combination of the two can be created and then detected is how digital data (only a concept) is transmitted / received (it’s all an analogue signal)

If there are 4 amplitude / phase variations that can be made and detected that would mean 2 bits of data can be represented by a single “rate of change”. If a cable can only carry 1000 changes per second (a waveform cycle) then using this encoding 2 digital bits of data can be represented (00, 01, 10, 11). So from a carrier frequency of 1k (100 changes) you get 2 thousand bits of data.

If encoding that analogue signal allows you to create and detect 16 discreet differences, then 4 bits of digital data (every combination of 4 bits 0000 - 1111) can be represented at either end of the analogue transmission, so in this case 1k carrier gives you 4kbts of digital data and so on.

The analogue signal is converted to a digital bit pattern using a method calls quantisation

I could go on. Is the that enough evidence? All my own words, nothing copied from another source.

Teraprat - these are your words not mine

“ The lower the frequency the lower the amplitude ”

Rather than insulting me, perhaps you need to have a cup of tea, calm down and stop ignoring this is what you said / typed whilst trying to humiliate me. When all you did was humiliate yourself (again)

Snooze - what do you think drives that scattering, reflection and diffraction?

Do you think the more ups and down, changes in direction per mm of substance might have anything to do with it? Rather than less ups and downs (backwards and forwards) (collapse & radiate) and therefore a more “direct” path might make it easier to penetrate?

I mean I don’t know, you’re the technical genius on here not me

Oh dear.

Terraprat - frequency has nothing to do with amplitude & amplitude has nothing to do with frequency.

I think the radio theory you are trying to understand is attenuation.

Radio signals are attenuated because of their “rate of change” through any medium, be that air, water or solid.

The higher the frequency, the higher the rate of change over distance means more attenuation (reduction in signal strength). The lower the frequency the less rate of change over distance and therefore less attenuation (resistance to change)

Hope that helps plastic engineers on here, all explained in plain language.

Bless.

@ snooze - no idea why you would ask me this when according to you, you and your mates on here know everything.

I don’t have time now so have asked AI to help you out

Samsung's 5G technologies improve on line-of-sight (LoS) challenges through solutions like Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB), which uses new cells to fill coverage gaps in non-LoS situations, and beamforming, which uses AI and Massive MIMO radios to steer signals directly to a device, increasing throughput by up to 30%. This technology allows for more reliable connections, even in challenging environments and with high-frequency spectrum like millimeter waves, which are more prone to signal blockage.

How Samsung's 5G addresses line-of-sight issues

Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB):

For high-frequency 5G signals, which travel in a straight line, IAB uses a new cell site to "backhaul" signals to a location that has a clear line of sight to the network's donor cell.

This creates new, smaller cells to fill in coverage holes that would otherwise exist in non-line-of-sight (NLOS) areas, enhancing overall coverage and capacity.

Beamforming:

This technology uses a large number of antenna elements in radios to focus a signal directly towards a user's device, like a spotlight.

It reduces interference and improves signal strength, which is critical for high-frequency spectrum like millimeter waves (mmWave).

Samsung's AI-based Mobility Enhancer technology improves beamforming performance, potentially increasing throughput by up to 30% in a mobile environment.

Fixed Wireless Access (FWA):

Samsung's FWA solutions are designed to provide internet access without a physical fiber line.

These systems use 5G signals and are built to deliver extended coverage, sometimes up to 12.5 km in situations where there is a clear line of sight between the sender and receiver.

It must be a characteristic of low end posters, to enter into a discussion and then jump all over other posters for things they didn’t say / write.

They seem to make stuff up to strengthen their side of an argument. It’s utterly ridiculous in so many way, but must help bolster the odd, deflated inferiority complex.

I’ve not said for one minute mobile broadband will out compete fixed fibre for speed, reliability etc. quite the contrary I’ve said people are reported to be using it to cut costs, because they already have a mobile contract with data.

I’ve also said mobile networks are perfectly capable of delivering a very good home broadband product & that mobile operators are free to expand capacity (at heavy costs) as they see fit, no longer bound by old, outdated thoughts of where one electromagnetic transmission will affect / cancel out Another.

A little research shows me in other country’s this type of broadband is very popular but is expensive for providers. Technology continues to move along with companies like Samsung now delivering equipment using techniques that are no longer line of sight limited & with excellent penetration, removing the need to have antenna outside the house.

I’ve also repeated these alternatives don’t need to take every customer away from BT fibre, they only need to take enough business to impact highly leveraged investment projects.

These posters cant find fault with what I’ve actually said, so they pretend I’ve said something different. I really don’t know how pathetic and miserable they must be ?

Bless them though.

Oh second thoughts don’t bother.

Fleccy - what, you’re now using anecdotal, edge user cases as evidence / technical outcomes?

You must be desperate. Do you want to go

Look for failures for fibre broadband too ?

You know, to make your comments objective rather than the constant subjective BS. Like a real engineer might consider such things.

Why don’t you just admit your understanding and therefore biased opinions are all based on a wafer thin understanding.

Profit - id say mind your own business, I really don’t know who you think you are?

Time spent working on technology is no indication of knowledge or expertise, the world is full of plastic engineers travelling around on the coat tails of others.

I’ll give you a tip though. People who think they know the most, generally don’t.

People who really know what they are talking about don’t need to push themselves forward at every and every opportunity.

I’ve already seen how shallow the knowledge is from this boards professed experts, utterly unable to apply the most basic of telecom concepts outside of a 101 understanding of how things really work.

But snooze. Everything I’ve said is correct

Mobile networks are capable of providing a good level of service for home broadband.

Mobile networks are capable of expanding capacity further should they need to

It’s the other plastic engineers on here who interpret what I am saying is everyone can have mobile broadband ( & actually technically they probably could) but I’m not saying that

& it’s the plastic engineers who are arguing 5G networks cannot support a serious home broadband service, citing concentration and other nonsense.

You just want to jump on the pompous bandwagon with all the other knowitnithings.

If you want to find fault with any point in making be my guest

To help you out I’ve said

4 & 5G mobile networks are very capable of providing a budget connection

I’ve said paper report says people are opting to use their existing mobile data plan rather than paying for fixed line / fibre broadband as well

I’ve said these alternative don’t need to take all of BT’s business, they just need to take a small proportion along with other alternatives to impact the bt business plan

I’ve said if necessary 5G networks can increase capacity using different techniques to allow cell sites to expand (if they wanted to)

I’ve said mobile cell sites are rolling out terabit backhaul to allow for broadband type services

I think you will only be able to find fault with what the pretend engineers are saying

Bless you though. You’re just a follower, I know that.

Sure if you need some more help.

Beamforming allows 5G cell sites to increase their capacity above and beyond a single massive thingy.

It’s not difficulty.

Well that’s not very nice after I’ve helped you understand how capacity can be increased on 5G networks showing your pitiful opinions to be very silly.

Helped you understand competition isn’t about everything, it’s all about taking enough business

& finally helping you to understand paying customers (where the actual money comes from) both retail and wholesale care very little about techno mumbo jumbo.

& then comes beanforming - I can go on and on and on about techniques to increase bandwidth on the radio size, each one disproving your assumptions

So it turns out the network can add capacity.

But I’ll say it again, alternatives to BT fibre don’t need to attract every broadband user, they only need to attract a few to disrupt BT’s investment model.

The article that started this, was describing home users saving money by utilising existing mobile contracts to provide 4G or 5g broadband connections allowing them to remove their fibre / adsl connection.

This is obviously possible to do, despite all your technical mumbo jumbo. Which, none of these users care about, they just want connectivity and a price, their money cares not about any technicalities in the background.

& again I’ll point out, if you think fixed line fibre connections don’t have any contention, either at edge or the wider network, then you are seriously confused.

The applications or need for a sustained 1gb connection are few and far between in the consumer environment

Still can’t read snooze?

My post said can support and up to, or words to that effect.

The point being based on the obvious & repeated statement “alternatives to BT fibre don’t need to take every customer, they need to take some to impact investment numbers”

A quick trundle across to the states and I can see large scale 5G fixed broadband in use and operating very nicely.

But you pretend engineering types can carry on barking at the moon if you like.

Oh dear look !!! Who would have thought there is a race in to provide multiple terabit backhaul to 5G cells.

AI Overview

While not every 5G cell site currently has terabit backhaul, many are being upgraded to have terabit-per-second (Gbps) switching capacity in their backhaul infrastructure to handle the massive data demands of 5G.

Oh dear.

AI Overview

A single 5G cell can support a massive number of fixed broadband connections, potentially up to 1 million connections per square kilometer.

Queue pretend engineers ready to argue with a machine that has already forgotten more than they ever knew.

Oh here we go. Can smell the arrogance and ignorance in equal measure.

So, a Quick Look shows literally every mobile operator sells a 4 / 5G broadband connection. It’s funny they would sell something pretend engineers think won’t work.

Taking technology discussion a bit further. Anyone who thinks there is no contention anywhere in the wider network for home fibre users, then they really are struggling.

But as I’ve already said. Alternatives to BT fibre don’t need to take every customer, they just need to attract enough to change the numbers

This calculation and uncertainty is what’s influencing share price fall, not a conspiracy of fools.