Hi Jim,
You and I are are interpreting the Earthlink piece differently, apparently. But to answer one of your questions about the relationship between WiFi and WiMAX, I've always seen the former depending on the latter for meshing between cells that were outside the reach of WiFi alond, and for backhaul purposes, and someday being coexistent with one another, where handoffs and roaming are concerned. But I think some snags must be ironed out first within the standards bodies before such attributes associated with coexistence could be guaranteed. But what Young is specifically addressing is WiFi, not WiMAX. He cites WiMAX as an area under cosideration:
"There are many candidates – WiMax and other emerging wireless, broadband over electrical power lines, to name a couple of promising categories."
But specifically targets WiFi as a solution:
"But today I want to focus on a particular approach to the last mile which I believe is ready to meet the need for affordable broadband access. It is Wi-Fi technology deployed in a mesh."
In any event, given WiFi's potential for congestion, compounded by its lower speeds than those of CM and emerging forms of VDSL2/ADSL2 and other forms FTTP, and its perceived problems with security (real or imagined), in general, I don't think you'll see it used as the main source of broadband access by many users where they have other options to select from that are faster, more "dedicated," and perceived to be more secure. Instead, in my view citywide wireless networks will be used by anyone on the move if and when they have a need in addition to their main for of access at home, but it will serve as a main source of access only by the most price sensitive users and/or in grossly un-served areas.
For FIXED residential and SMB applications, Cable Modem, DSL and future FTTP access methods - with each of these potentially complemented with in-residence WiFi or some other form wireless - will present a higher value proposition than Wireless for the reasons mentioned above, except where mobility and other reasons having to do with convenience of use are required.
Your second general question brings out a larger issue, though,
"How many transceivers can (or will) a pole support?"
This is something I've found myself grappling with, too. Specifically, in the wireless realm how does a municipality administer a shared-use resource like the pole top or rooftop) in a manner comparable to shared wireline alternatives.
With fiber, for example, multiple strands could be pulled along a right of way where multiple service providers could serve their customers on the basis of which fibers are selected. Even where a single fiber is brought to every end point wavelength division multiplexing supports a model where service providers could be allocated their own wavelengths, hence an end user could receive services from multiple providers, with each service provider delivering service over the specific wavelength assigned to it.
Of course, with both WiFi and WiMAX a transceiver could support multiple frequencies, especially when multiple antennae are used (MIMO), but to share those dynamically between multiple providers detracts from the reasons why they were invented in the first place, which was to make an individual service provider's delivery more robust.
I don't know where Earthlink comes up with 1200 ft of separation between poles, but assuming it is a valid one I don't see sharing the same pole tops as a significant issue, at first, since typical spacings between pole tops in NY City, if my residential area of Brooklyn is any indication, would support a minimum of six light poles within a 1200 ft diameter, and probably more in Manhattan, but I'm not sure. I just took a look outside my window and estimate that the average distance between five light poles in my view is on the order of 200 ft (100 ft radius each). Keep in mind, however, that these distances only relate to frontages, with greater separations existing through the lots on each block (the homes and backyards) that fill the voids between streets. There, instead, exist an abundance of telephone poles, but I don't suspect you'll see any WiFi units mounted on those ;)
FAC |
