« Texas Wireless Symposium: The Future in the Eye of the Beholder | Weblog | Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks? »

Which Way Municipal Broadband?

Category:  Laws & Regulations > Municipal Broadband Policy Debate

Back at the Texas Wireless Symposium in Austin, the panels have become less cellular centric, and that's a positive development. In fact, it has proven very interesting. This morning, Paul Strusaker, VP Engineering for Platforms and Mobile Devices at Motorola, stressed the duality of SIP and cellular - he said that Wi Fi Mesh and WiMAX shouldn't be viewed as competitors to cellular - they're complementary. What's more, dual handsets will take off because they provide coverage in areas where cellular often experiences poor reception (inside homes and businesses). That problem is an opportunity for the handset to shift to a WLAN. I'm more optimistic about the prospects of wireless municipal networks after hearing Paul's quality presentation.

Now, on to the Municipal Broadband panel discussion, which is my bread and butter.

Niel Ransom, former CTO at Alcatel, moderated the panel. Niel began by giving an overview of industry status. His opener: the US is falling behind in broadband access. Isn't that where this topic always starts, with the US down at 16th place? With all these PCs, why aren't we the leader or at least near the top in broadband? Korea is now enjoying the benefits of compeittion, with falling prices and rising bandwidth, as companies vie to outdo each other in Mbs value. WiMAX (IEE 802.16-2004) is being trialed around the globe. One compelling thing about this municpal broadband development, Ransom said, is that IP applications can become an alternative to the mobile data applications that cellular operators are counting on for new ARPU. Skype, Vonage, Bit Torrent, and others can provide the value once the broadband network is made available.

The Panel
Andres Carvallo, CIO, Austin, Energy
Mohan Natarajan, Vice President of Engineering, Firetide
Devebhaktuni Srikrishna ("Sri"), Founder and CTO, Tropos Networks
Roger Dorf, CEO and President, Navini Networks

Neil asked about the future of municipal wireless broadband.

Sri opened with some statistics to explain why Wi Fi mesh will prevail: over 100 million Wi Fi computers out there, and by 2009, it is anticipated that 20% of cellular handsets will be Wi Fi compatible. Metropolitan Mesh networks provide the data speeds that 3G cannot, because their technology limits them, providing mesh an opportunity.

Mohan played it a little safe, when he commented that 3G is complimentary with both Wi MAX and Wi Fi Mesh (echoing a theme from earlier in the day). While Wi Fi has cost and bandwidth advantages and 3G has problems, 3G's problems can be addressed. The winner will only be determined when all these technologies converge - then we will see which technology rises to the top.

Roger was then baited a little by Neil, who cited comments from telecoms that mobile WiMAX (IEEE 802.16e) will be rendered obsolete and still born by 4G solutions. Roger claimed that it has service comparable to DSL and cable, but is untethered, which is a decided advantage.

How could a utility make use of the new wireless technologies? Where does it fit in the municpal policy debate? Andres asked that if the city can provide other essential infrastructure services, why can't it also provide telecommunications where it is not available. Why put them on the bench when they could be in the game helping to close the gap in national competitiveness? Look to the incumbents' business models, said Andres, to understand why they will not be able to compete: their model bundles infrastructure access and content in an exclusive bucket, which is challenged by these new market entrants, who provide better value with a general purpose lower cost network and market-based content.

Sri added that cities should have the option to do what their citizens need them to do. It's very straightforward, he said, Wi Fi mesh provides a great value, so the market is responding.

Asked about 802.16d and e and the incompatibility of the standards, Roger responded that e's potential dwarfs that of d, because it targets the mass market. He looped back to mesh networks and asked about the risk when cities lack deployment and management expertise - won't that splash mud on the technology? Aren't you worried?

Mohan explained that mesh was just an architecture, and at its core it is technology-agnostic. Mesh architecture gives such aspects as self-healing, self-configuring, etc. Sri answered Roger saying that Philly's selection of Earthlink was a great harbinger that the capability to deploy and manage these networks would exist and that the risk Roger cited was not real.

Andres asked the audience to look again at the business models out there, challenging them to look at machine-to-machine communication over wireless networks as an example of an alternative use of wireless networks to achieve better business efficiencies. There is too much focus on personal telephony service and that leads us to overlook the other benefits of wireless networks.

Neil posed two scenarios: as a common carrier of bandwidth, should these new carriers be required to allow any application; or as an application provider, can the new carriers exclude applications that they deem harmful to their network?

Sri said that Net Neutrality and bandwidth consumption are separate issues that inform this question. Limited capactiy means that operators must throttle bandwidth. But the types of applications is another matter. Roger said its a classic case of balance, between users' needs and traffic management. The needs of the many should trump the needs of the few. Mohan cited peer-to-peer applications as the next wave - stopping it will be impractical, and that will lead a focus on value add. The prisoner's dilemma comes up here, where competing motivations exist.

Neil brought up the licensed v. unlicensed debate, citing a UT campus issue when student networks were conflicting with campus networks and the university objected. The FCC said its rules do not preclude an overlay - how do you feel about that? Hot spots got away from this risk because the operators also owned the real estate. Is unlicensed spectrum appropriate for outdoor networks? Sri responded that the question is Does it Work? and the answer is Today - yes and Tomorrow - yes, because the environment today will be similar to the environment tomorrow. Interference issues are overblown. WiMAX, on the other hand, will see its largest opportunity in licensed spectrum.

Mohan believes that technical solutions are on their way to any interference issues. And Andres said that new carriers will enter the market for their own purposes and then repurpose to serve the public - WalMart is active in RFID, Google looks for advertisers, 7-Eleven traffic in their stores, and MacDonalds manages its supply chain. Sri's observed that 190 cities are in the process of purchasing a municipal network, and 40 cities have RFPs by the end of the year. They are pursuing value and the market is noticing.

Neil asked for predictions and got some interesting responses.

Mohan stated that bandwidth has already become a commodity, and it's on its way to becoming a portable commodity, unlinked from the home or business. Networks are about more than access. Applications will proliferate once the infrastructure is deployed. Integration of applications will be a next step. Infrastructure must have the hooks to accommodate new applications.

Roger predicted that wireless will enable personal broadband and that markets will start to look at number of people with service as the primary stat, not number of households. People add up to a bigger market, so that's why cellular has taken off. Volume will enable multiple types of access. Wi Fi and mobile WiMAX will survive.

Andres wrapped up the predictions by saying that broadband is to the 21st Century as the Interstate Highway System was to the 1950s. You must have it to thrive, and the way for us to get it is to unleash the market.

Let My Market Go!! Unwire My City!!

Posted on October 28, 2005 at 10:58 AM

Comments

Posted by: JAMES CARLINI on November 10, 2005 03:35 AM

Post a comment