Hello Jim,
I believe that your point about using infrared wireless systems as an alternative to fiber
in in-building riser systems deserves some additional discussion. You stated:
"But it occurs that it might also be usable up the sides of tall buildings, and cut the cost
of running fiber in the interior. It would depend on cost, among other things I guess.
Just trying to find these guys a few new markets.."
There are many instances within skyscrapers, where new system initiatives are
scrapped even before they have a chance to be tested, simply because of the cost of
broadband capacity implementation within building risers and campus area pathways.
Or, more to the point, due to the lack adequate pathways to begin with, especially
when public streets and thoroughfares must be crossed.
In some newer buildings the costs may be excessively high (per bit) for the amount of
capacity required, and in many old buildings risers are all plugged up with old copper,
which makes any incremental pulls virtually impossible without costly new construction
which in many cases would need to be borne solely by the first user who calls for it.
In the past, microwave radio shots have been used as a means around landlords'
unreasonable demands and contractors unreasonable estimates to have fiber pulled in
riser systems. In some instances, the creation of a new shaft was not an option due to
the presence of asbestos between floors and in ceilings, and due to other structural
impediments, such as the need to preserve base-building architectural integrity.
Since aiming microwave antennas from one window to another window within the same
structure is not always legal or practical, some enterprise managers have arranged to
use a second building as a reflector for microwave T1s, T3s and wireless Ethernet
shots when line of sight was required. In this scenario, usually when an organization has
multiple office leases in adjacent or nearby buildings (such as in a virtual campus
arrangement) they have the option of using active systems in a back to back manner, or
passive reflectors, in order to get traffic from one floor to another floor within the same
building, by "bouncing" the signal off of the second building.
Active back-to-back microwave systems would be used if add-drop requirements
existed in the "second" building where the reflection is taking place. In this instance, it
needn't actually be an add-drop mux, but rather a router or a means of hardwiring
some dedicated capacity in a nailed up fashion to the second building's use, and the
remainder coming back to the first building.
Or, the reflector could be one of a hi-gain passive type, using metallic antennas which
simply bounce the signal back to the originating building.
I once got involved with an active back-to-back topology of the type described above
for a large brokerage firm in NY (at 55 Water Street whose neighboring building was 1
NY Plaza. This was for a top-3 firm before we moved them to WTC back in '90).
They needed to get multiple T3s between floors within a short time frame to satisfy a
new outsourcing arrangement on a very high floor, when the legacy feeds were on a
very low floor.
When they viewed the proposed costs to achieve inter-floor construction and cable
placements as excessive, they chose to go with leasing T3s by the month. The T3s were
supplied and provisioned by LOCATE (Local Area Telecomm), the once-dominant microwave
radio *wireless CLEC," at the time. Locate installed two T3 Systems from Building A
to Building B, and two return systems from building B to Building A to complete the
loop. Some capacity was also added and dropped at Building B, in a manner as I
noted above, and delivered to both the lower and upper floors in Building A.
They were able to implement these systems within five weeks, if my recall is correct,
which was in sharp contrast to the nine months that the landlord had given as a time to
completion for new risers in the freight elevator shafts.
=======
In an earlier assessment concerning the implications of TeraBeam's IR venture, I stated
that IR would foster new topological possibilities, and not necessarily those which
would follow normal Internet access constructs. This inter-floor capability is but one of
them. In order to facilitate the optimal implementation possibilities that users will be
looking for, however, the service provider would need to be open to satisfying multiple
types of needs, and not solely those which address Internet Access. Here is where the
partners of TB will come into the picture, I suspect. Furthermore, however, I predict
that once the concept of using IR is validated once again by the TeraBeam model, there
will be a rising tide effect which will raise all other infrared system possibilities as well,
and here, once again, it is not point-to-multipoint LANs that enterprises will want to
employ, solely.
Instead, they will in many cases also want the ability to define their own virtual
campus-like backbone architectures within disparate buildings, using a combination of
fiber, lots of IR where views permit, and even some traditional carrier facilities, and
they will want to create a heterogeneous mix of links. In this manner they would avoid
becoming captive to any single carrier's hooks, and ultimately find themselves with a
more robust (read, reliability through numbers) architecture.
Once the prejudices against IR are lifted, especially once dark fiber becomes more
available as well, I think that we will see a flood of activity in getting point to point
systems installed, where today FUD still prevents them from being used. Gotta run
now, but there's a lot more to be said on this topic. Perhaps you or someone else
would like to pick it up where I left off...
FAC |
