The 747 and the Helicopter

I've made this argument since I launched this site 2.5 years ago:

Connectivity is about BROADBAND, not about Wireless...(I've also made the argument that networks are more about METROPOLITAN REGIONS than they are about Municipalities) - thus, my ditching "municipal wireless" in exchange for "metropolitan broadband." We need wired solutions like FTTH, Cable, and DSL for reliable connectivity when we are in a fixed position, like at home or in the office. We need wireless solutions like cellular wireless (voice and/or data) and wireless broadband when we are mobile and away from our normal fixed locations. Hot Spots are a blend - really a portable solution that is not so much mobile as it is an alternative, fixed location.

That said, I spend far more time on wireless than I do wired solutions, because wireless is my bread and butter. Until that changes, I'll no doubt keep spending more time on wireless.

But that's no reason that we all shouldn't look at wireless and wired broadband as two equally valid and complementary technologies. Asking which is better pre-supposes that there is a certain need being filled and that they are comparable solutions to fill that need - most times, one is better than the other.

Having this conversation regarding the need for both FTTH and wireless broadband at the Summit, not one or the other, I recall some people looking at me like I was crazy. But I also remember others nodding, and one expert in particular finishing my sentences for me, saying "Oh, yeah, it's like the 747 and the helicopter..."

"How so?" I asked.

"The 747 is hard to beat if what you need to do is move a large number of people economically and comfortably over a very long distance, say, over an ocean or between continents. The helicopter is the best solution if what you need to do is to move a small number of people or things from any one location to another, generally over a relatively short distance, irrespective of airports and runways."

Huh, hard to argue with that!

Similarly, there is no better network for capacity than fiber - FTTH offers nearly infinite capacity and long-term viability because of its physics. But there is no better network for mobility than wireless broadband - IMHO, Wi Fi Mesh offers a relatively low-cost wireless solution that goes up relatively quickly, then provides far more bandwidth than a cellular air card solution to far more people.

What was interesting were the conversations I had about which comes first.

On the one hand, a small town may opt for a FTTH solution first, because they have very poor alternatives for triple play services, and little need for mobility. But after the network is in place they may grow more interested in a Wi Fi Mesh network, because with fiber widely available, the price of Wi Fi Mesh goes down, and its utility goes up.

On the other hand, another town, perhaps a little larger than the previous one, may opt for wireless broadband because they already enjoy adequate competition for triple play service, but their city government operations could benefit from more options for mobile solutions. But after the wireless mobile broadband solution is in place, the value that the community places on broadband goes up, and there may be a more compelling appreciation for the benefits of FTTH.

It's a matter of priorities and at some point, after some experience is gained, its about awareness and paradigms. But in every case, we will all need BOTH THE INFINITE CAPACITY OF FTTH AND THE UBIQUITOUS MOBILITY OF WIRELESS BROADBAND, before all is said and done. Some of us will get it sooner than others. And those of us who get one, so goes my argument, are more likely to get the other sooner.

OH, one more thing...

A hot skillet and a fried egg .. made an impression on me ...a classic, and an inspiration for this post.