I haven't blogged on my own site in a while. My apologies for this. I do blog regularly on www.wimax.com and on www.wimax360.com for those who would like to see my more recent blogs.
What I wanted to do today was catch up with some of my current thought on the overall industry and where it is going. Lets start with Municipal Wireless. Probably no major broadband wireless industry initiative has become high profile and bust in near record time the way Muni Wireless has. Arguably, EarthLink both launched the industry and perhaps recently sounded its death knell by transferring the first of its five operations to the local city governments for free. The whole industry just got mired down by its bad business plans. And for their part the cities just wanted to get on the gravy train of getting something for free. I actually thought the industry had more legs than this, and that while it was the current bandwagon it could evolve into something useful. But nobody (much) found a business model that worked. And the result was chaos and loss. I suppose that my old WISP instincts about knowing where revenue was coming from for every major expense should have given me a better clue. I will listen to my gut better next time.
So where goes WiMAX in the US. Sprint and Clearwire are still in a holding pattern. I am hopeful that something good could come out of that if the companies and their investors can pump enough cash into some joint venture to get it started. Barry West recently said that ramping up WiMAX has been a lot harder than expected. I wonder if the bootstrap to real 4G will be that way for everybody. After all LTE technology is pretty close to WiMAX anyway. Hmmm? Meanwhile, smaller regional companies with licensed spectrum are moving on with WiMAX or precursor fixed/portable plays reasoning that those are strong enough to get customers—and they are. WiMAX needs some mobile certified gear as soon as possible.
The big 700 MHz auction was largely about the rich getting richer. For all its cheerleading Google did not succeed in forcing the C-block to be open to any operator and so Verizon ended up controlling it. AT&T was the other big winner. Some smaller regional plays got spectrum. As usual there is still a dearth of spectrum for small companies around the US who might deploy quickly if they could get some. Our public spectrum policy still leaves a lot to be desired. Sure this 700 spectrum has a four year build out requirement (once the spectrum is cleared by broadcasters), but when did industry giants NOT get an extension on such things—really?
So what is everybody else to do? I think the new 3.65 GHz spectrum offers huge opportunity for smaller independents. Three companies, Redline, Airspan and Alvarion have gear for the band, which is all WiMAX-based but obviously not really WiMAX as there is no product profile for this spectrum range. Interestingly, Alvarion's gear seems to be 802.16e based versus the others 802.16d based. I was surprised at that. In any event, minus the exclusion zone issues, you can deploy anywhere you want by just applying for a national license (takes 15 minutes I am told) and less than $250. Then you just register your base stations. This band will gain converts quickly if the gear works well.
I just completed putting together the Tower Technology Summit at CTIA for Light Reading. That was fun and got good reviews plus strong attendance. The Tower Industry is very healthy right now and will continue to be I think.
What else? There is plenty but this blog is already too long. Stay tuned for more.
The recent announcement by Sprint and Clearwire of their joint collaboration to build out their combined spectrum assets with a WiMAX network seems to have not caught on with very much buzz it seems. I am more optimistic than some about this. Certainly, there have been criticisms of Sprint of late, which has taken hits for the loss of customers and other setbacks in its bid to digest the Nextel merger.
However, in speaking to Sprint just yesterday I got the sense that the company has excitement about what this collaboration can do for them. They pointed out that WiMAX will offer a lot of opportunities for new revenue streams that did not exist before combined with significant cost savings over 3G deployments.
The details are that the two companies will trade some spectrum, pick out areas to deploy in and begin deployments independently, while offering customers a cross-roaming functionality AND develop a combined CDMA/WiMAX service that really manages the downside in case WiMAX doesn't pan out. The two companies plan to jointly cover 100 million customers by the end of next year, which is about what Sprint initially planned to deploy alone. So some detractors may pick at this because of that. For my part, I think there are more net positives for the industry and consumers that this is a minor issue. Deploying to anything close 100 million consumers is a gargantuan task. If involving Clearwire can get that done faster all the better. Ultimately Sprint intends to deploy to about 185 million consumers and Clearwire will pass about 115 million. Neither goal will be simple to accomplish.
I feel this will quiet restive investors on both sides for the companies and maybe allay fears of the expense of deploying a network of this scale. The cost factor seems to have a lot of both pundits and detractors who feel it will cost more. But I can't help but wonder if some analysts are looking at more traditional 3G cost models when parsing the information they are getting. In any event, I think this will answer a lot of Wall Street questions. I also think it will measurably speed the deployment of both networks especially as we move into 2008.
All well and good, but what does it mean for the industry? I see several positives. Getting deployments started will be a watershed (certainly Clearwire already is heavily engaged in this). But having Sprint actually begin deployments will be a bellwether moment. It ups the visibility for everybody. Also, I suspect that more institutional money, and investment money in general, will be drawn into the BWA marketplace as a whole. This type of rising tide could lift all boats. And make no mistake there is still tremendous opportunity for smaller carriers to make a mark in this space. To learn more about this and who some of those carriers are, stay tuned for my WiMAX report in September where we will reveal what we have found.
Ultimately, I view this collaboration as a positive step for the industry as a whole.
In almost all respects, the FCC made no changes whatsoever to its prior rulings on the 3.65 GHz spectrum. What it did, however, was clarify the rules around its "contention protocol" requirement, which are extremely important for both WiMAX equipment vendors and carriers potentially using this spectrum. The spectrum is still non-exclusive, but does require base station registration and a filing fee for the spectrum by each provider, of which there could be many. This is close to the unlicensed-band approach, aside from the registration and fee. One operator described it to me as a "lightly regulated" band, which seems a very apt characterization.
This band is potentially very important, with a solid block of spectrum (50 MHz) that would carry even more bandwidth per MHz than the 2.5 GHz range. It also boasts a mid-range blend of power allotment (higher than unlicensed spectrum and lower than licensed spectrum) that has a lot of utility, especially for rural providers. Specifically, this is 25 watts per 25 MHz of spectrum for fixed/portable use and 1 watt per 25 MHz of spectrum for mobile use (a much lower power allotment – likely indicating a more commonly fixed/portable approach in the band early on). Non Line of Sight (NLOS) service at modest ranges should be possible with this power allotment.
This would free smaller companies in many locales from competing in a hugely expensive licensed spectrum auction. It should significantly help the deployment of broadband access in underserved areas, at least once equipment is available. Several operators have written me that they are already asking their providers when gear will be available.
What the FCC did was to redefine the contention protocol to include two main sub-classes. These fall into "unrestricted" and "restricted." Unrestricted gear could be used across all 50 MHz, and restricted gear could be used only in the lower 25 MHz of the band. WiMAX falls into the restricted category. An example of an unrestricted protocol would be the CSMA/CA (carrier sense multiple access / collision avoidance) approach that Wi-Fi currently uses. This is very similar to the typical Ethernet computer network method, whereby each device is constantly talking and looking for an opportunity to transmit. Although the polling methods used by WiMAX are much more efficient, they only work within the context of WiMAX-to-WiMAX gear (at least at this time – some vendors are working on protocols that could be extended across both definitions). Thus, the restriction to the lower 25 MHz is designed to prevent WiMAX gear from interfering with unrestricted protocols in the upper 25 MHz.
Certainly other unrestricted contention-avoidance protocols are in development for the 3.65 GHz spectrum. However, the FCC wanted to speed the deployment of currently-available gear to the market for the 3.65 GHz range, specifically the retuning and use of currently available 802.16d fixed WiMAX radios. These are already being shipped internationally for the 3.5 GHz licensed spectrum range, for which 802.16e mobile WiMAX technology should ultimately be deployed also. Shifting to this new frequency will be relatively trivial for vendors.
The FCC declared the entire 50 MHz of spectrum available to be served by unrestricted-type gear, perhaps in part because unrestricted systems would not interfere with the WiMAX or restricted-protocol systems in the bottom 25 MHz, as they incorporate some type of “Listen Before Transmit” approach. However, the restricted systems would probably interfere with the unrestricted ones. So in my view, the FCC essentially segmented the band into WiMAX (or WiMAX-type gear) and Others.
Is this a good thing? Yes, especially in terms of time-to-market. Also, there were few, if any, gear types that were ready for the unrestricted protocol previously defined. This is a huge WiMAX win. We could potentially have gear certified by the FCC for this band next year.
Hi. Everyone. I have a new podcast up on www.wimaxglobalnews.com where I interview Mr. Rodney Prescott, the CTO of New Zealand Broadband Wireless ISP, NATCOM. Natcom is a very interesting firm competing in what, in many ways, is still a monopoly telecommunications marketplace. Very interesting stuff and he is a super energetic speaker.
Also of special note they are interested in selling their domains www.wimaxmobile.com and www.wimaxfast.com. You can call me (828-505-0702) for details or for an introduction. The company plans a short three-step auction near the end of this month if no one buys the domains outright. They could be sold separately. To register for the auction simply go to www.wimaxmobile.com and follow the directions or I can make a personal introduction for you. I promised Rodney I would help him try to sell these in the US.
But in the meantime, enjoy the podcast, it is a good long one and full of lots of fascinating tidbits about the New Zealand marketplace. Have a great Day.
Good morning everyone. I have a new website. My designer www.CubeCreativeDesign.com has done a terrific job if freshening up my look. As part of this new site, I plan to start adding scripts for my podcast www.wimaxglobalnews.com as I got several requests mainly from my listenergs who were non-native English speakers trying to decipher my Southern US accent. Starting with the most recent show, those should start going up fairly shortly. Enjoy.
The site also features a calendar with my speaking engagements or show attendance or important events. I have secured permission from CMP media to reprint some articles I did with them last year that were not posted on the web. Thank you CMP. Other features include the occasional poll, a whole series of RSS linked news feeds (where RSS was available) including WiMax.com, Trendsmedia, ISP-Planet, BBWExchange.com and Wi-Fi Planet. I have all of my online articles up to date on the site. Plus links to two free Webinars I have done. I added the capability for people to contact me me via phone for a low per minute rate to ask the occasional in-depth question without having to retain a consultant. I hope you use it often.
There is more to discover so please enjoy the new site. Are there any features you would like to see that I missed?
As we move into 2007 what will be the major trends for the broadband wireless industry? One trend I noticed last year when I was doing my annual survey of top broadband wireless providers was (anecdotally at least) an acceleration of consolidation. Companies are merging, being bought and sold and in general trying to get larger via acquisition or merger.
Why? I think that answer is easy and is survival. As firms like Clearwire vigorously begin to enter the broadband wireless marketplace along with the steady growth of wireline and 3G cellular service, companies need economies of scale and new markets to grow.
I am also seeing a really welcome trend towards shifting more towards a B2B sales model by the independents. Companies like TowerStream and, as we saw last year, NextWeb have been rewarded for their lucrative B2B models (NextWeb selling to Covad).
In the coming year I think we should expect to continue to see WiMax shift more and more strongly towards the 802.16e Mobile version of the technology. Even for the vendors promoting the fixed WiMax version of the technology, most have strategies alreadyi place to migrate customers towards Mobile WiMax.
One big question for all of us is whether or not Sprint will be able to meet its very aggressive deployment plans which include launching WiMax service towards the end of this year.
I do think that municipal wireless will be certainly one if not the major growth segment for the whole broadband wireless marketplace. No bad thing. I would expect to see more targeted niche markets being addressed in that space—perhaps built around advertising schemes. I am very skeptical with advertising as a primary revenue driver, but in the right niche, with the right demographic, it could work….well maybe.
My new website is up. I am updating article links and adding older WiMax Global News Scripts as quickly as I can (for Non Native English speakers who have requested those).
Expect to see my newsletter soon. And WiMax Global News resumes THIS WEEK! I hope you will listen in.
An excellent article in The Wall Street Journal (suscription required) discusses government failures to deliver a wholesome spectrum policy to the marketplace. Some of the statistics cited are very revealing and interesting. The government's outlook towards spectrum as a resource to keep scarce (and pricey) is very anti-competitive in many ways in my opinion too. We need more and smaller companies with access to licensed spectrum and there is plenty the Federal Government is sitting upon. Nice piece. I always like the way the WSJ treats subjects in depth. You learn a lot. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
This rather controversial piece in Light Reading interviews Rad Data's Zohar Zisapel about his views on Fixed WiMax. To say the least his views are very critical. Mr. Zisapel is deservedly considered an entrepreneur of great renown. However, his wireless gear brand Radwin is working on Wi-Fi systems with WiMax like capabilities. On this one point I believe it is important to consider the commercial interests in those comments. The piece in general is very entertaining. Certainly Mr. Zisapel has no problem with delivering a frank opinion. And you have to find that refreshing anytime. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
I had a really good show at Broadband Wireless World in Vegas week before last. I almost did not go due to how much I had going on workwise (It is good to have work by the way). I haven't missed the show since I started going. Ultimately I am glad I made it. I came home with even more work. So that is double great. Plus Tim Downs gave me my first voice in the industry as a writer and consultant and I don't believe in forgetting your oldest friends. So what went on? Kelley Dunne showed up with his new company Digital Bridge Communications, but he kept a low key profile. I think that firm will do very well. The Digital Middletown talk by Ball State professors and Kelley was excellent too. Proxim stepped up as the top sponsor. I thought that the mesh guys were out in real force. Strix was there and its customer Mobilepro was speaking. Tropos, Motorola with their two Mesh systems, Hopling (through its distributor StarMesh), Skypilot and one or two I don't recall. Mesh is really hot right now. Municipal wireless is driving the Broadband Wireless Industry right now. The WiMax talk and fervor from last year has muted a bit, I suspect because gear is still not widely available. The need for standards isn't going away though and the industry is just sensibly focusing on where the growth is right now. When WiMax is ready for the US market the intensity will be back. This isn't to say that it was unrepresented. Fujitsu was at the show in force and has been announcing wins left and right. As are many precursor WiMax vendors. The precursor proprietary gear is very, very good folks. And it meets the business case now. Don't wait for anything to get customes. Now is the time Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.net
You may be wondering why I am harping so on this search technology. It doesn't have that much daily direct impact on broadband wireless for me. But search to me is what has driven the web for a long time. Google has been the only real rock star (in my mind) to survive the dotcom fallout. I read in Friday's Wall Street Journay where eBay, Microsoft and Yahoo are collaborating because they fear Google might cannibalize their business. So really innovative new search technology is a big deal I think. It could impact wireless, especially cellular in a big way. People have no patience, if they could get useful info in one click on a phone, suddenly the Internet makes sense in that application. This is a huge deal for WiMax, especially mobile WiMax. So let me catch you up. You will recall I have blogged on a company called Wireless 5th Dimensional Networking, Inc. a couple of times already. Well, there are a lot of people at MIT who have been working on wireless technologies of all sorts. And this one I found is just one of them. Well, here is another along the same lines. It appears that Nokia is partnering with MIT on this new type of search in a big, big way. Are they possibly the firm who bought 5th Dimension? I don't know. As a public company it and Google would have to disclose a purchase I would assume. I didn't see anything on either. Maybe a purchase through a subsidiary would be harder to find? Not my specialty and I don't have that much free time. I did "Google" (and what is the irony of that huh?) some of the other papers cited in Fuller's Thesis and that is some interesting stuff. One paper by Wesley Chan is based on GIS locates of APs (as I understand it from a quick browse). I am not certain if this is his personal website or not. But it does reference him writing one of the most downloaded client applications ever (his words). Can you say the Google Toolbar? I have one at the top of my screen. So is all of this coincidence? Maybe. Heck, even probably. The MIT genius community can't be that big after all. Most likely Fuller drew on Chan's research as others have since probably drawn on theirs. The Nokia project may have no relationship to either and then again it might be influenced by it. What do I know conclusively from all this? Not a whole lot. Just supposition. A Thesis is public domain. Patents however mean a bit more. I am getting the sense that we might be on the cusp of some really radical new technologies that will draw on wireless very heavily to really affect change in our lives. One was the tunable RF chip that a 5th Dimension advisor's company is working on. Others are these search technologies. I've been reading Fuller's thesis a bit more and I think I have a grasp of what it is a bit better. It seems the first main goal is to reduce clicks to consistently under 3. That sounds about right to me for a portable handheld device holder. Much more and they give up or find a phone book to look for ads. I recently saw where one search engine (Yahoo I think) offers actual video driving directions from one site to another. Cool, cool stuff. That all REQUIRES broadband to work well. And especially wireless broadband. I think this will really impact WiMax a lot. If I hear more I will let you know. Maybe the company will call me back or drop me a note. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
I read a really good article in the Wall Street Journal from April 11th by Amy Schatz and Amol Sharma about the potential change by the FCC to a blind bidding process. WSJ requires a subscription. Here is a link to a different piece. This particular spectrum range appears pretty useful. It was formerly a Defense Department asset. The ranges are: 1710 to 1755 MHz and 2110 to 2155. There are 1122 licenses slated to be auction. So good penetration and good bandwidth capacity. Nice tradeoff. The big talk though is that the FCC will keep blind the names of all bidders through each round—only showing the dollar amounts. Obviously the first goal is to maximize bidding. But theoretically at least, it could prevent cooperation between carriers. Will it work? If there are no leaks maybe? The Federal Government never has leaks does it?
If you will recall Monday I blogged about this stealth (sort of anyway) search company called Wireless 5th Dimensional Networking, Inc. Well the company's site says it was sold anonymously (one supposes privately). If you will recall too I thought the technology was really innovative. First, it is optimized for wireless networks—a big plus. Also, it kind of operates like Google in reverse: instead of the end user looking for information, the information acts to find the end-user. Cool stuff. I think it could revolutionize the Broadband Wireless business especially on the advertising side. And more importantly the handset side for WiMax and Cellular providers. I mean people haven't used the Internet a whole lot with handsets because it is slow and takes a lot of time to get anything. Plus search takes a bunch of clicks usually. So this stuff seems an attempt to take a form of AI and get a useful answer in one click based on where you are at what time. Well, all very interesting. In the company overview one of the advisors is with Wilson Sonsini, which is the big Silicon Valley law firm that took Apple and Google public. Okaaaayyyyy. Most of the rest are pretty prominent people too. Another advisor, a Carnegie Mellon Professor Anind Dey, previously worked for Intel. Dr. James White of CalTech founded a company called Active Spectrum that is developing an RF chip that can apparently tune as needed to most any radio spectrum. All very interesting stuff. So did Google buy this company? Or was it someone else trying to keep the technology quiet? I have no idea. But I read something today that makes that question even murkier. I will blog on that later in the week. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
I am off on my annual pilgrimage to Broadband Wireless World this week. Looks to be lots of new goings on. I know of at least one major launch being announced at the show. They have kept pretty quiet so far. If you are in the industry, you will know the man launching this company however. If you are out at the show, feel free to give us a ring. I will be there all day Thursday and Friday. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
I am always looking for something new that is useful for Broadband Wireless. And mapping technology is a huge part of the business. Well, I stumbled on something fascinating. It is a new type of location specific search technology at its most basic. But that is just part of it. I had seen a blurb about a big WiFi project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that talked about location based mapping of APs. I thought that was kinda neat. Well, this led me to a Thesis that a researcher there (by the name of Napier Fuller) wrote. You have to pay to download the thesis so I started searching for him. It appears he has started a company. Wireless 5th Dimensional Networking is a pretty bare bones site. The Silicon Valley company does not go out of its way to tell you all that much about itself. Fuller is listed as the Founder and President. It has filed at least one patent and that and the Thesis paper is linked on its site. The website also says it was sold this year to an anonymous buyer. I only got voice mail when I called. Well, now I am starting to wonder why all the secrecy about who bought them out. Well, I love a mystery. And they were making it just hard enough for me to intrigue me, so I looked up the patent application. Now that turned out to be pretty easy. And guess what? Both the patent and paper are in the filing there. The paper is under the Documents tab. Turns out that this patent heavily references this research Thesis, which is based on something called Context Aware Search. Folks this is no less than an application of Artificial Intelligence to location (and I mean Access Point) specific searching. I won't try to describe it all in this blog. But it impressed the dickens out of me. Basically its a search engine that's designed from the ground up for wireless networks. Imagine a search engine that understands what hotspot you are at and can filter every search query you make based on that. BUT which also takes into account the time of day and day of the week you are searching as well as parsing commonsense knowledge people in the area should have. Driving directions are not take street so and so. They are instead go West two blocks from the Big Dome, turn right and look for Tang Hall. If you type in "shows tonight" it might give you times of nearby shows that are not sold out (if such info is available) and that you have time to get to from your location (at least supposedly). Now if this is not just smoke and mirrors (and the company is going a bit out of its way to not claim anything from what I can tell) this is a radical search innovation. I am going to dig a bit more into this and post more later. I don't know how far along this is or even if it is even close to a product phase, but… I am especially curious who bought them and why it is being kept so quiet. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
I saw another good blurb in the Rural Spectrum Scanner this past week on the 3.65 GHz band. The big issue in this range is a required "contention protocol" that the FCC has mandated. This is an approach not to dissimilar to the approach used in WiFi or ethernet where radios first listen for traffic then talk. The problem is that it is not a very spectrally efficient way to handle radio polling. As you might expect the FCC did not specify what contention protocol companies should use resulting in some confusion. In any event, some comments by industry have asked the FCC to remove this requirement altogether, which is a bit problematic as it was designed to protect the Fixed Satellite Service stations grandfathered in the spectrum. Also, the spectrum is not exactly unlicensed (although the FCC probably intended to lean in this direction) technically. It requires the registration of base stations on a non-exclusive basis. Jeff Thompson at Towerstream likes to call this approach "lightly regulated". In an of itself that is no bad idea. Opinions on what to do with this spectrum are all over the shop. Some favor switching it all to licensed bands. Others say licensed in urban areas, non-exclusive in rural areas. Ultimately the FCC is going to have to re-work its Report and Order to re-define this spectrum a bit. Once accomplished though, it is potentially very valuable spectrum. It would also be very easy (and economical) to re-tune existing 3.5 GHz WiMax gear for this range. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
This report about Canopy's new Cable compatible wireless systems caught my eye. I thought it was quite interesting. I have not seen anyone else come out with gear optimized to help cablecos extend their networks. With the Telcos coming after their video business with IPTV and the cablecos in turn offering VoIP and Broadband this makes a lot of sense. I can see some real potential sales gains here. Apparently the modems make use of the data over cable service interface specification (DOCSIS) 2.0 standard to handle the translation to the cable system. Neat idea, whose time has come. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
There is an excellent piece in Law Firm Bennet & Bennet's Rural Signals newsletter about the upcoming auction of AWS spectrum in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz range. Here is a chart they offer on the band plan. The first auction is set for June 2006. I highly recommend reading the full analysis. It is complex. Basically though the upshot is that acquiring the spectrum is only part of the cost. There are numerous protective requirements for existing users in the spectrum range as well as others in side bands. Much to know. But potentially very valuable spectrum encompassing 90 MHz of spectrum. The expectation is that 1,122 licenses will be awarded. Voice, video and data are all allowed as is both fixed and mobile broadband. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
One of my good friends, Ken DiPietro blogs quite lucidly on Municipal wireless, public policy and many other things. Ken's Blog covers many topics, but I was especially struck by one blog on Regulation as being very important and a potentially massive looming problem. The Telcos want to control the quality of IP traffic. Basically they propose their circuits to be a toll road. Nevermind that we the public are already paying for service. The Telcos have decided they want to offer prioritization and the FCC seems amenable to allow this. Why is this bad? Well on the surface it isn't necessarily. Many VoIP companies would probably do well to have their IP traffic prioritized on a network for example. Of course, what about smaller companies who could not afford this "prioritization", would they in turn be discriminated against or relegated to something less than they have now? One has to think yes. So structurally, would this mean that every network IP traffic would cross to reach a consumer would get its own little cut? I shudder to think how many hops I go through just to reach Google. How many times must Google pay for me to get free services from them? Ultimately, if this happens I pay or I do without or someone wealthier gets a better experience. What if we are talking online education or distance learning. Will poorer children or school systems be able to afford the educational content that wealthier patrons of the net will get? What about rural kids? I don't know. But it is a slippery slope. Now, how this came about is straightforward enough. The Telcos have enjoyed a monopoly, albeit a regulated one for a long time. One could say that the regulation makes things inherently fair. Trust me, the Telcos learned to play the political game of regulation long ago. They get their way, just witness a Louisiana law forbidding the city of New Orleans from operating a broadband network. Remember the days when cable TV was illegal in bigger cities? The broadcast stations had a great lobby then. Now, for a long time Telcos have been content to deliver the content as they always have. It was no big deal, they had the pipes. The problem now is that innovation has exploded what was one of the truly stable business models in the US (along with electric power). Voice over IP by the cablecos and cellular service is rapidly stripping the incumbent Telcos of their cash cow, which is local service. I think they have few choices with the switch type networks most are operating. What are they going to do to ensure they maintain revenues? And trust me, we do need them to survive. They do operate most of the nation's backbone. So what is a happy medium ground? I don't know that I have the answer but I don't think giving them a regulatory win of such profound nature is the answer. I suspect what the Telcos must do is learn to compete as commercial companies do in the marketplace. The recent uptick in fiber deployments by AT&T and others is very encouraging because it means they are adjusting to offer new products like IPTV. I think this is the path of success. A positive one too. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
I read a press release from Aperto describing the just completed rollout of its gear with India's VSNL (Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited), the top telecom provider in India. From the release it cites the first wave (which is apparently already deployed or at least underway) is covering 65 cities with eventual goals to cover over 200 cities planned the first year. The units are in the 3.3 and 3.6 GHz range. The network has some major corporate customers on it already including Amadeus (the airline reservation system) and Hyundai. VSNL has global services and especially strong presence in Asia. So far as I know this is the largest scale broadband wireless deployment ever done based on the number of cities fixtured. So far as I know. I don't know the number of units sold etc., but this is something. Slice it however you will, this is a huge, huge win for Aperto. Kudos to Reza Ahy and his staff. Aperto also announced it was opening a development center in the country. There was lots of details on that one so see their website for more details. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
Hello everyone. I've been asked by one of my editors at ISP-Planet to do an impromptu survey of WISPs who have filed or not filed their 477 Forms with the FCC. I will write an article on this as well. Some of you may not know what the heck that is. For some background here is a good short article on the subject. By the way, there is no penalty for not filing as I understand it. BUT and this is a big BUT, the FCC will use the data to determine how relevant WISPs are to the marketplace, so I encourage all of you to file. So please email me and let me know where you stand on this such as have you filed, not filed, plan to file, absolutely won't file and or your opinions about it. Due to their editorial rules I have to share the sources including names, phone and email address of anyone I talk to with ISP-Planet, so I can't take anonymous submissions. However, I won't quote you if you don't want to be. And I won't be sharing this info with anyone other than the magazine. So I would appreciate your input folks thanks. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
I saw an article on Yahoo discussing a research report from Parks Associates that indicates that general Internet access interest is waning. To be fair to broadband the piece addresses Internet use in general. However, while the two should probably not be inferentially linked the reasons given would seem to me to apply to broadband as well. The Parks study indicates that some respondents feel they have enough access at work. Others are simply uninterested in the Internet. While a few more (8 percent) said they did not understand the Internet. Only 4 percent cited cost. Most interesting to me is that 39 percent just said other. Now that is a pretty broad category. So what could that mean? It could be that as the story says everything goes in cycles that are tied to the economy, social custom and other factors. Certainly as you get closer to the majority being on broadband the "growth" would slow. This is sheer speculation on my part so take this with the grain of salt it deserves. But could it be that being online just doesn't seem compelling to people because they don't see a substantive value in the way it changes their lives? How many of those who say no in this survey download ring tunes or music on their cell phone? Some do I bet. I think others may not have broadband capability where they live and don't see dial as a real service anymore (though this is a reach). I would actually expect that the services that could be vended through our pipes might be the fulcrum that provides a tipping point. Also, perhaps education is still an imperative for those who don't have Internet connections Things like a cheaper VoIP service from a service provider may be the one thing that changes their mind. People buy because they need things (if they understand they do) or because it makes them feel good. Virtually all buying decisions are emotional decisions even huge corporate purchases (can you say executive job security is what you sell—that is an emotional tipping point). I guess the long rambly point I am trying to make is that we need packages, services and education for our product that compel customers to take action. Understanding what that is is crucial. Asking them the right way is important too. Maybe we don't understand the right question here? Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
This article detailing a Pew study on Rural Broadband caught my eye. Interesting statistics including that, as of last fall US Rural broadband at home reached 24% up big time from the 9% of 2003. Suburban dwellers achieved 39% penetration up from 22% in 2003. Not having access seems the main impediment. There are some demographic differences and disparities in income and education that result in slightly different usage statistics for those who do have broadband. But the variance is modest. So why is this important? Well, for service providers it means that rural customers want broadband pretty much as bad as anyone else. It also means there is fallow opportunity to take before large providers get around to it. Unserved is still the easiest market to take. Granted rural markets are low-density and that means your business case has to be looked at with a laser beam (or your budget with a laser scalpel). Still there is money to be made here…for a while. One clear note that sounds to me is that the window of opportunity is closing and closing much faster than before. Go get 'em guys. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
There is a really neat little newsletter that I peruse regularly called the Rural Spectrum Scanner from the Bennet and Bennet Law firm in DC. I recommend it. In any event they reported on the efforts of Republican senators Ted Stevens (Ak) and George Allen (VA) to pass bills that would apportion a lot of unlicensed band spectrum in the unassigned spaces in TV channel spectrum ranges. One bill addresses spectrum from 62 MHz to 692 MHz (ch 4 to 51 more or less) and the other 54 MHz to 698 (ch 2 to 51). Rural Broadband being the primary reason for this apparently. I thought this was fascinating as it addresses heretofore lower frequencies than I have ever seen considered for unlicensed band wireless. Why is that so important? The trade off in lower frequencies is lower bandwidth. But the range and penetration capability of these frequencies is excellent, even with unlicensed band power. Line of sight problems are the Numero Uno hassle for unlicensed band operators. Some of the newer modulation techniques could deliver fairly decent bandwidth at pretty healthy ranges that would actually penetrate objects somewhat. Amazing think of that. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
