One of the great issues with any networking technology is always going to be interference. Copper cables had to deal with it, particularly around any strong electrical current. Fiber optics are harder to interrupt, but can still encounter interference in certain situations. Wireless signals can also be disrupted in this manner, sometimes even rendering them useless as nothing can get through whatever is interfering with the bandwidth.

signalinterference

Source: https://pixabay.com/photos/wave-signal-communication-850007/

So, now that we have an understanding that interference is bad for pretty much any OTS cable, what can we do about it? To get an idea of how to make this issue not something that crops up regularly, we should first understand what interference is. From there, we’ll figure out what we can do to keep it away.

What is Signal Interference?

Signal interference is anything that can disrupt the transmission of information along the cable. In copper wires, it could be electrical current or electromagnetic fields. For fiber optics, it will be anything that gets in the way of the light stream being reflected properly.

The result is that you lose strength and consistency, perhaps even losing the data entirely. In the best of cases, you only get a mild blip, a minor interruption. At the worst, the cable is made incapable of getting the signal through. This dip or even loss of performance will only go away if the source of the signal interference is removed, which might be more difficult in some instances than others.

Common Types of Interference

Now, let’s look at the most common types of interference you will find. According to industry standards, there are basically four categories. You have static, common mode, magnetic, and crosstalk.

Crosstalk

Crosstalk is an old issue, one that was a prevalent concern for telecommunications. It is defined by the superimposition of pulsed DC signals between two or more means of transmission. It can also be caused by standard AC signals. The signal crosses from one wire to the other, garbling up the information in the transmission. The result can make the other end sound choppy or, in some cases, be sent to the wrong receiver.

The typical solution is to use twisted pairs of cable, which reduces the odds of crosstalk. If each wire is individually-shielded, this further mitigates the problem. Since it runs on electrical currents, this is only an issue for copper cables and is not a prevalent issue in fiber optics. Sometimes, it can crop up in wireless signals, though this isn’t typical.

Static Noise

Static noise is also something that comes from electrical currents. In this instance, the field doesn’t jump wires but instead distorts the existing signal. The transmission may gain a great deal of noise, losing clarity. In extreme cases, the data may no longer be readable by the device receiving the information. This is typically an issue with older copper cables.

The common solutions are twofold. The first is to use foil shields, providing efficient protection against outside current and static. The second is to ground the cables properly, maintaining the integrity of their electrical signal in relation to interruptions from outside fields.

Magnetic Fields

Magnetic fields are also potential issues. Knife switches, power transformers, sufficiently large AC equipment, and sources of electrical current can all generate an electromagnetic field. This field then creates noise in the signal that can disrupt it in the same way electrical sources do. This is the reason it is advised not to run ethernet cables parallel to electrical wiring, but instead to line them perpendicular to each other.

Eliminating magnetic noise is the same as electrical noise. You use twisted pairs to deliver the signal. Padding is less helpful here, other than as an additional layer of insulation if the source of interference is electromagnetic in nature.

Common Mode Noise

The term common mode noise refers to the result of different electrical grounds at various points. As the current flows through these points, the signal becomes distorted or degraded due to the changes in grounding. The best preventative measure here is to simply ground the system properly, usually requiring the aid of an electrical engineer. You also want to install a power system that can regulate this issue.

External Noise

If your cables are fiber optic, external light is also an issue if there is any damage on the protective jacket. The internal components of optical fiber are designed to reflect light as a means of transmitting the data. Anything that causes that light to be lost or causes external light to enter can cause noise. However, this requires extensive damage to the physical coating of the cable, which would be immediately visible.

Cable Shielding

Another way to protect cables from interference is shielding. The least you can get is foil shielding, which is low cost and protects the core conductors. If you need electromagnetic interference protection, braid shielding is a better choice. However, it is also more expensive. Multi-shield, which consists of both foil and braid shielding, is the best choice because of the comprehensive protection. It is also the priciest of the three.

Conclusion

Signal interference can ruin a network before it gets set up. Understanding where it comes from and what you can do to reduce or avoid it is critical. Fortunately, it’s not that hard to do. A little forethought can go a long way in avoiding interference.

Being one of the Asian countries with lowest cell site density, the Philippines is forced to serve more internet users per cell site compared to most of its neighbors. Setting up more telecommunications infrastructure continues to be challenging in the country, hampered by lengthy permit applications and some uncooperative stakeholders.

Latest data from TowerXchange and We Are Social showed that user-per-cell site density in the Philippines is now about 4,036, based on estimates of 16,600 total cell sites against internet users of around 67 million internet users as of first quarter of the year. This shows a stark difference when compared to some of its neighboring countries like India, Indonesia, China, and Vietnam.

India, with 1.459 million cell sites against 462 million internet users, has a user-per-site density of 316. Indonesia, with over 91,700 cell sites against 132.7 million internet users, has a user-per-site density of 1,446. China, with 1.95 million cell sites against 751 million internet users, has a user-per-site density of 384. While Vietnam, with 70,000 cell sites against 64 million internet users, has a user-per-site density of 914.

The disproportionate number of cell sites versus internet users in the Philippines is mainly attributed to difficulties in securing permits from various local government units (LGUs), homeowner associations (HOAs), and other stakeholders, causing considerable delay in the construction of such facilities, Globe Chief Technology and Information Officer Gil Genio said.

For Globe Telecom, more cell sites are needed as its network saw mobile data traffic soar by 49 percent to 641 Petabytes during the first nine months of 2018, from 430 Petabytes recorded in the same period in 2017. As of end September 2018, Globe clocked in 65.4 million mobile customers, the majority of which are internet users. For instance, around 246,700 Globe active customers in Cotabato City in Maguindanao are forced to share only 13 cell sites. This shows the urgent need to build more towers in order to serve the current data traffic that continuously grows exponentially over the past months.

“Consumer demand for mobile data is growing at an explosive rate. This means more and more cellular towers have to be deployed to keep up with the demand. But deployment is only the final step to a potentially long, costly site acquisition process,” Genio said.

Lengthy permits

To cater to the rising demand for data, Globe has been accelerating the deployment of cell sites across the Philippines. This is part of its initiative to continue building on its network capacities for better quality of internet experience. But in the absence of regulations on the construction of passive telecommunications infrastructure, LGUs impose their own requirements, slowing down the deployment of cell sites.

Aside from LGU permits, HOAs, exclusive subdivisions, and building administrators also impose certain guidelines and requirements based on Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Resolution No. R-626 issued in 1998. From negotiations and documentation of prospective cell site location to securing structural permits and approvals, Globe estimates an average of eight months and over 25 permits before it can build one cellular tower.

Non-present health risks

Several exclusive villages and HOAs in the Philippines also refuse to have network-boosting cell sites deployed in their vicinity because of unfounded health risk linked with exposure to radiation emitted from cell sites.

Global authorities in radiation safety, like Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and World Health Organization (WHO), have affirmed that proximity to cell sites does not cause any known health risks, contrary to what many HOAs and exclusive villages in the country believe. Even the Department of Health has taken all the necessary precautions in ensuring that the Philippine standard of thermal emissions from local cell sites are at least four times lower than what has been approved globally.

In a bid to bring the Philippines closer to first-world internet connectivity, Globe continues to push for cooperation among all stakeholders, from the public sector, down to the barangay level,  property developers, and homeowners.

Snapcart, the real-time offline shopper and consumer insights startup, late last month closed a USD10 million series A funding from several investors, which include Kickstart Ventures, the wholly-owned venture capital company of Globe Telecom.

Photo (L-R): Laith Abu Rakty, Co-Founder & Chief Technology Officer; Teresa Condicion, Co-Founder & Chief Data & Operations Officer; Araya Hutasuwan, Co-Founder & Chief Financial Officer; Reynazran Royono, Founder & Chief Executive Officer

The amount, which is significant for a data B2B startup, would be used to advance  further Snapcart’s AI-based OCR technology, as well as expand its operations and teams in the Philippines and Indonesia, where it currently operates. Snapcart is pushing  to widen its market to include other Southeast Asian countries.

“A sizable amount of the fund will be used to further enhance our product’s proposition. Given our unique organization structure, where our Data Science team is based in Manila, we would ultimately ramp up the Philippines organization,” says Teresa Condicion, co-founder and chief data & operations officer of Snapcart.

Condicion added: “The participation of Kickstart in our Series A fund-raising will definitely boost our business development efforts in the country as well, given their vast network.”

Snapcart is the 34th firm to receive funding from Kickstart, which invests in digital startups globally. It is Kickstart’s second portfolio company from Indonesia.

“Kickstart supports entrepreneurs and accelerates the growth of new businesses in the digital technology space. It is co-creating a dynamic innovation ecosystem in the Southeast Asian region, and helping to promote partnerships between startups and large enterprises. Snapcart has an excellent founding team, possibly the most diverse we’ve seen at this stage. The product is innovative and robust, and the business model demonstrates good traction as can be seen from its A-list corporate clients. We believe in what Snapcart offers and we’re thrilled to support its growth,” said Minette Navarrete, Kickstart President.

The Series A round was led by Vickers Ventures Partners, with participation from Social Capital and Endeavor Catalyst. Existing investors also followed on like Wavemaker Partners and SPH Ventures.

Snapcart previously closed a USD3 million pre-series A round in early 2017.

Launched in September 2015, the app has over 700,000 users and is collaborating with more than 75 FMCG brands across the region such as Unilever, L’Oreal, Unilab, and Nestlé.