Mu-Fi? Why Municipal Wireless Will Win

First and foremost your article and its summations are incorrect. Verison attempted to do a municipal wifi network in 2000-2001 in New York City. They leveraged their existing phone booths and used the data connection from the copper to the booth(mesh didnt exist in any usable form) with YDI access points called T-pop's. Even with a better backhaul achitecture and high power AP's the project failed miserably. There were many reason but one major factor was that it simply did not work well. The technology was never designed for that type of use. This is why 2.4 ghz is unlicensed, it is not extremly valuable spectrum (among other things) and its physics are not conducive to metro communicatons.

Version fought for right of first refusal on the the Philly network and won. As soon as the won they waived thier rights and let all the others jump into the mess. Becuase they knew working over unlicensed spectrum is not a viable business model. If anyone can (and will) interfere with their service and they cannot prevent this then they have an unreliable and uncontrollable service that will work in some areas and not in others. And this will constantly change based on anyones whim to instal their own access point, 2.4 ghz phone, baby monitor, etc etc. No inteligent business can take that type of risk.

Now the incorrect summations, quoted from the article and answer below

"And new mesh technologies mean Philly can plug into the Internet just once, paying wholesale rates, unlike the folks who run Starbucks or hotel hotspots, who overpay (probably to Verizon) for the Internet connection their Wi Fi users share. It is, and it's not going to be pretty for Verizon. By rigging the city with wireless hotspots under the guise of helping the disadvantaged, Philadelphia may completely bypass Verizon. A T1 line from Verizon, which carries 1.5 megabits of data per second, runs anywhere from $400 to $1,300 a month. With Municipal Wi-Fi (Mu-Fi), that could drop to $300, heck, maybe even $20 a month. Consumers (read voters) are happy and small businesses will save tons of money. No wonder phone companies are circling the wagons. Think of it as a telco tax cut. Cheese steak sales are gonna boom."

T1's cost more for a reason. It is not that the copper and bandwidth that is expensive. It is the SLA that comes with the T1 and the upload speed. Offering 4 hour guaranteed fixes and 99.999% reliability come at a great cost to a business. The major factor overlooked in all of this cost savings is the price of service and truck rolls. Anyone can buy a adsl line and get 1.5 down (or more) for $75-$85. WHy do they buy T1's....becuase they are guaranteed, whereas dsl is not. Wake up!

"New technologies exist that adapt Wi Fi signals as they bounce off walls and buildings, guaranteeing 15-megabit speeds, enough for one high-def or three regular TV channels. One of the hottest consumer electronics products in Japan is a flat panel Shower TV that displays Wi Fi video streams. So let's see - customers might shut off their home phones, their cellular phones and maybe even their cable connection. Ouch. Want to bet Comcast joins the fight against Mu-Fi?"

????? What technology is that...have yet to see that one. And that number is 15megs AGGREGATE!!! That means that 15 megs is shared over all users on that particular access point. So even if there we only 3 people on that access point using Tv, voice and internet you would basically have poor tv quality, poor voice quality, and chopy internet access. Now move the projected number of users per AP to something realistic and your will have 10+ people trying to access this supposed 15 megs. This will not work! Do the math.

"Kessler's conclusion underscores the message often conveyed on this site. Municpal wireless networks are disruptive because they transform the status quo. How long will it take Verizon to swallow hard and accept the new status quo? Why don't they run around and get in front of the parade? I hope they do soon, because their efforts to delay a very rational process in the interests of their shareholders leaves them on the wrong side of the issue, in my humble opinion, and hurts their shareholders more than it helps. They could do a lot of good using metropolitan mesh networking equipment, with all their expeirence and skills, to lead the creation of a new, more efficient telecommunications infrastructure."

This is precisly the reason they are not getting involved. The networks will not work and their shareholders will lose BIG. Their experience tells them that this is an uncontrollable frequency, with low power allowances, and ever growing interference, this is not good for share holders. Instead they are opting to develop EVDO, which is over a licensed frequency, can support hundreds of users and can be reliable.

In conclusion

1) Wireless (especially unlicensed bands) will never give the same reliability as wired circuits. Cell phones arent even 99% reliable...wi-fi will never see two nines, much less five nines.

2) Throughput numbers that are given by Tropos (the guaranteed vendor for philly) for aggregate bandwidth to the enduser is 1 meg. That is barely enough bandwidth for a sinle internet user, add multiple users and TV and voice applications and you have dial up speeds to the end user

3) Verison is not part of a conspiracy to stop broadband access to America for their own gain. They are actually investing more money than any other communications provider in the broadband market. they are developng wireless EVDO broadband and have deployed in many cities and are also laying FTTH (fiber to the home) for millions of people. Because they are a public company they must move prudently to ensure they do not lose their shirts in unproven and unlicensed technologies.

4) Cities are not equiped to handle customer support. Have you ever tried to pull a permit or get a CO for a business. if that is acceptable customer service and response that good luck when your wi-fi has inetrference or is not working and you call the city to "fix" the problem.....still waiting....still waiting

5)Municipal Wireless will ultimatly slow the speed in which cities get broadband alternatives and hurt competition. If and when cities invest millinons into these networks it will stop anyother provider from adding to or increasing the level of service in these areas because private industry will not compete with the city, and the city is not in business to make a profit therefore their rates will be much lower. So big companies will stop pushing, other wifi and wireless providers will be pushed out because the spectrum will be overcrowded and will not be reliable, leaving the low income people with DMV style internet from their city....and when they are unhappy and want to get pay for quality access it wont be available becuase the city killed the competition.

6) Private sector will not buy city wifi networks. The reason the city will attempt to sell them is that they are not profitable and actually will cost the city millions in support and service. And by that time the technology will be severly outdated.

7) Wi-fi is not reliable for many users. I own a WISP and I can tell you first hand that I prefer a wired connection with wireless option over pure wireless. Think about a home network. If you are using city wifi then you cannot network your Desktop, laptop, TiVo, servers etc. Now throw in TV and VOIP?? What happens if your neighbor has a 2.4 cordless phone....your tv cuts in and out, your phone call gets broken up, and your internet stops streaming...what can be done to prevent this? Absolutly nothing!

8) The author of this article didn't do their homework. I just spat this out in a few minutes...if I had time to get all of the issues on the table we would be here for days. I think its a "I hate the communications provider" rant rather than, "I knw what I am talking about and facts to back up my claims"

9)The concept of muni wifi is awesome, however the reality is far from the goal and wi-fi will never be the answer to our lack of broadband. Sorry to burst the bubble but I encourage you to go try this type of network in a major metropolitan city (rural can work but we are talking cities here) and let us know the results...I assure you they will not be what you think.

Sorry for the spelling but I do not have the time to review this.

Please provide feedback!

Good Luck,
Rick

Any new disruptive technology comes with doubts and concerns especially from incumbents that stands to loose if the new technology works. I wonder if RickT ever read Seeing What's Next by Clayton Christensen, the undisputed authority on disruptive innovation. The book describes in its first 100 pages exactly what's happening in the area of unlicensed spectrum, metro-scale Wi-Fi and soon-to-be WiMAX.

"Wizened industry veterans suggest that it will be next to impossible to overcome these hurdles [of Wi-Fi]. Regulation and physics, they note, constrain Wi-Fi's improvement trajectory. Perhaps. But history suggests that when there is ample motivation - which there certainly is, in this case - innovators will eventually overcome these barriers." Clayton Christensen.

I wonder if RickT ever read The Coming Age of Unlicensed Wireless, by Kevin Werbach (see RadioRevolution.pdf), which takes a different position than RickT's "2.4 GHz is not extremely valuable spectrum" argument.

"Because of their flexibility, dynamic [wireless] systems often have the ability to maneuver around potential interference, whether by splitting up signals into packets spread across a wide range of frequencies, hopping from place to place in the spectrum, or sending communications through a physically distinct route across a mesh network. Think about a group at a cocktail party. Many people can hold conversations with one another simultaneously. They can do so not because they each shout over the others, or because they agree on a set of rules to define who can talk when and how. It's obvious to us that the reason so many people can talk at once is that the speakers modulate their volume and the listeners use their brains to distinguish their partner from the ambient noise." Kevin Werbach

What about the more than 300 communities with existing or planned wireless networks in place? Can it be that communities like Athens, GA; Corpus Christi, TX; Chaska, MN; Oklahoma City, OK: and Spokane, WA (not to mention the numerous square miles of Philadelphia that are already deployed) are void of baby monitors and garage door openers? This "tragedy of the commons" argument, suggesting the metro scale Wi-Fi will become like CB radio, has been debated before. RickT, please read Wi-Fi like CB radio? I don't think so

And what are those crazy up-starts like Alvarion, BelAir, Tropos, Cisco, Nortel, Siemens and Intel thinking? But wait, there are also some pretty big, well respected company names in that list!

See Motorola Snaps Up MeshNetworks

"For MeshNetworks, the purchase by Motorola 'legitimizes the whole mesh networking concept,' says Rotondo. Motorola "really understood to get to the next level, mesh networking was the architecture to get you there...centralized cell towers weren't going to work."

Or for that matter, see Cisco Targets Mesh Networking

"Officials at Cisco, in San Jose, Calif... said the company is paying attention to the municipal mesh market and will take advantage of all the assets of Airespace."

Why would they be investing so heavily in this technology if it doesn't have a chance at succeeding? Why isn't there an EVDO radio in every laptop shipped? And what about all the investment capital that has flowed into the metro-scale Wi-Fi vendors? Humm... I wonder if they are having the wool pulled over their eyes? I wonder if these naive companies should call RickT for advice before they keep wasting their money?

Oh, and what about those crazy countries like Canada, UK, Sweden, Korea, and Japan where the government and telecommunications companies are actually working together to deploy broadband access throughout their countries, which has pushed the US from 3rd in the world to 16th in just three years as the most wired country. I guess we need to rule them out because they couldn't possible know what they're doing.

Many companies have been investing in WiFi and pre-WiMax technology for several years before municipal governments found a good, practical use - improving peoples lives, spurring economic development, overcoming the digital divide and yes, reducing the cost of service delivery to our constituents. Had wired and wireless technology been affordable and accessible to all communities both urban, suburban, ex-urban and rural, government wouldn't be getting in the game. Local governments can't stand by and watch as the telco industry redlines our neighborhoods, receives billions of dollars in tax subsides as they build out fiber to the home, which may never be affordable to the low income families, and restricts local government participation in telecommunications.

If WiFi and WiMax are such poor technologies that will fail, why are the big telco and cable companies spending so such money to restrict local government involvement? Why are they taking the fight all the way to the Federal government? Why not just sit back, watch these technologies and their government sponsors fail, and say, "See, we told you so?" Especially when virtually every major city in the U.S. is approaching these projects as some form of a public-private partnership, and committing NO public tax dollars.

Local governments are tired of waiting for universal, affordable service for all residents and businesses in our communities. A technology now exists to meet this basic need; and it's faster to deploy, less costly to support and easier to maintain. Call Wi-Fi a toy if you like. In declining to purchase the telephone from Alexander Graham Bell for $100,000, Western Union president William Orton famously said "What use could this company make of an electrical toy?" Of course we all know the end of the story; Bell's company (AT&T) acquired Western Union a few years later.

Well I guess you missed the point. I am not agruing that wireless technology will not come a long way in the near future. Nor I am I saying that big companies arent spending big dollars. Or that municipalities should never get involved, or that service should not be better. Or that we as a country arent moving fast enough.

What I am stating is that 2.4 ghz wifi (802.11 b/g which is what most proposals for muni wireless include) and the FCC regulations govering that frequency is not the right technology for metropolitan cities to be investing millions of dollars in!
4.9Ghz and other licensed bands specifically set a aside for their use can provide the infrastructure a city will require for governmental, public saftey, and other municipal uses.

Never read those books, I must have been busy installing wi-fi networks in hotels, city blocks, counties and MDU's.
However, you still have not answered any of the objections to the article or its conspiracy theory Verison rants.

I know full well what is going on in the industry and work with many of the vendors you have listed. I just dont agree with municipalities installing telecomunications that are unproven for any significant amount of time and still cutting edge. And I never said anything about Wi-Max, which btw doesnt exist yet, and is not scheduled to be avaiable in the mobile form for at least 2 years. There is no Wi-Max in Philly deployement or anyother municipal deployment for that matter. It may be great in 2007 or 3g, EVDO, HSPDA etc technologies may have passed it by then....no one can tell yet. But what I can say is the 3.5 Ghz will not be avaiable any time soon so 5Ghz will be the default spectrum which is evermore crowded and not ideal for mobile metro communications (see tropos whitepaper)

I love wi-fi, it is an amazing technology that I use all day every day and make a living off of, but it has specific uses. I guess I can sum it up by quoting a great leader "you can't polish a sneaker."