Hi, Keith -
I agree with Ray. The economics of broadband wireless are pretty bad. The regulatory environment could be better. Spectrum is mangled. The high ground (ie., dense urban environments with large profit margins) is already well-served. The cost of setting up a cellular infrastructure, even using existing towers (which also have a cost) is large. The barriers to new towers/repeaters for infill are huge - NIMBY at work. The market is not well-defined.
There is a chance that standardized networks will make appreciable gains: ie., IEEE 802.11x and up, because they will have the best chance of overcoming costs.
The real question for broadband fixed wireless is: can it compete successfully with other forms of broadband in price, ease of use, and ease of implementation?
Setting up a cellular system, with base stations, repeaters, and properly estimated backhaul is not trivial or inexpensive. If you're going to maintain a consistent data rate throughout the geography of your network, then you need a certain density: as distance increases, your throughput rate drops off.
There are companies who now have the technology to deliver broadband fixed wireless using advanced forms of modulation. We read over a year ago that OFDM tests by Sprint had achieved 80% penetration in urban environments. There's only one problem: it ain't selling. It's a solution, looking for a market.
Broadband fixed wireless is one of those things, on the face of it, that is instantly appealing: it should be cheaper; it should be easier to implement; it should be capable of generating a profit.
I echo Ray's opinion: look very, very carefully before you commit your hard-earned dollars to a wireless investment. Broadband fixed wireless is one of technology's oldest Cinderellas.
Regards,
Jim |
