These may be questions based more on ignorance then anything else –

While 4 to 6 radio’s per sq mile would be great from a truck roll/maintenance/CapEx point of view – won’t all the laptops and other consumer gear out there have trouble pumping out enough juice to be able to talk back to that access point?

I’m thinking standard WiFi because if the technology you’re thinking of requires a retrofit (PCMCIA card?) or upgrade then what’s the difference between that and the current need for a CPE bridge?

Also, as soon as you mention P2P – doesn’t that automatically up your device count per sq mile? I mean, if you don’t get coverage till a ton of devices are out there acting as repeaters then it’s kind of a false promise….isn’t it?

r.

Thanks for a great, passionate piece. FYI, my point of view is shaped in large part by our hands-on tests of the mesh offerings we installed in Dulles and on the “consumer in a box” endpoint test gear we installed on our own and some commercial WISP providers’ networks, which shaped my views on the real consumer experience. As to the statement of creating a viable business model, that’s the rub: No one has so far for large metropolitan implementations (e.g., the top 20 DMAs). I just don’t ever see someone getting all the stars aligned where they can compete as a third, fourth or fifth consumer data network play in a major market. If they could proce the case, funding would be pouring across their doorway.

I do think patchy hotspot solutions have some consumer convenience value, but in no way are they competive as a stand-alone mass market offering. As to the use of the technology in other applications (telematics, etc.), I do see a practical use case potentially.

If there are solutions that don’t require me to use proprietary CPE gear, can work in unlicensed spectrum, and work with 4-6 radios per square mile in a metro implementations that can offer a good consumer experience, I hope they emerge. They would be pretty disruptive.

You are 100% correct on some of the tradeoffs, as you step down to lower frequencies. The challenge here is balancing throughput with ubuquitous coverage, as you craft a consumer offering. I think the most extreme example is the 76hz system we use to communicate with underwater subs globally – really amazing science to reach a sub through miles of earth and water, but at a tradeoff of incredibly low throughput.

I am concerned that the 2.5Ghz Mobile WiMAX systems being promoted worldwide will falter long term as they experience the same in home (structure) penetration issues and blockage by heavy foliage that impact all these higher frequencies.
The CellCo with the new LTE systems will have a long term solution (2010-2011+) that will provide competitive levels of bandwidth but unless they change their way of doing business (packaging)they will have difficulty competing with an all you can eat WiMAX/WiFi enabled network using off the shelf Intel, Broadcom and Atheros based radios build into most devices-Cameras, Laptops, Dual Mode Phones etc..
Watch how the Minneapolis Mesh (BelAir) and the Boston suburbs Mesh (Strix) networks based on Carrier Grade Nodes deliver a viable Last 1000-1500Ft Wireless Networks in any designated coverage area.

This is a Business and as soon as we get the Muni and Service Providers to pick the best Technology and focus on delivering a viable profitable business model we will all benefit from these true Broadband Outdoor Portable and Mobile Networks.
I envision the following Wireless distribution network:
a. Wireless Mesh (Maximizing Bandwidth) deployed in key market areas providing Access in a 1000-1500foot area-focusing on delivering VoiceIP, Video, robust Data and P2P type connections.
b. WiMAX based 700Mhz systems delivering Portable and Mobile Broadband links in the Wide Area network focusing mainly on extending (FMC handoff) the Mesh Networks (VoiceIP/Video and Data) services to cover the major market areas.
c. CellCo 3G and 4G Networks will provide a nationwide/County and STate wide Narrowband Data and enhanced voice solution where the above 2 networks do not reach. UMA and IMS type services will ultimately allow a handoff between all thes networks.

Seems to me that these analsyst should stop being so negative and focusing on what has failed in the Wireless markets and focus of providing readers with some value by projecting where the market is headed-that takes a little more courage-Read Craig Settles and Robert Cringely who offer direction.

Jim A.

Aren’t there inherent trade offs as you slide along the frequency spectrum re: penetration of buildings vs. throughput, etc.?

r.

First, thank you for the thoughtful response! On your point, I would agree: There are many potential useful applications for wifi in cities. Perhaps the right statement is: No wifi-based metropolitan consumer internet access service will succeed, other than as patchy hotspot solutions. Telematics, meter reading, etc. are lower bandwidth, fixed location services that might indeed be a fit.

The numerous articles you mention are tied to the same observation, “If EarthLink, AOL, AT&T, Sprint, and a slew of other ‘traditional service providers’ can’t make money at municipal WiFi, it must not work.”

The definition of “success” in your personal experience has been as a traditional service provider. “Success” in terms of municipal benefit is a relative term that could satisfy a variety of issues independent of the service provider’s financial health.

Muni WiFi is a complex proposition – I will agree with you there. There is not a single network that didn’t have some sort of deployment challenge. Why? It’s a complex solution to deploy. However, when properly architected these types of networks can be a valuable resource for the community.

The applications that will leverage municipal WiFi networks are just now emerging – gun shot sensors (forensic evidence and real-time alerts), infrastructure sensor networks (see Minneapolis bridge collapse), video surveillance to reduce crime (see Jordan Downs, CA), parking management systems (reduce meter management costs dramatically), traffic light management, street light power management, Meter Reading, and general access benefits, etc.

In these contexts municipal WiFi is not a “failure”. The challenge is going to be in getting these networks paid for, and there are several cities beginning to step up.

Respectfully,

Eric

Will