Hi, Mike - Reading the debate, a few things come to mind, that have not been mentioned so far.
First, on the future of BBFW: I have yet to read a report (and I'm including detailed analysis by Lehman, Gartner and Forrester among many, many others) that says "BBFW ain't coming. It's a crock." I'm sure someone is saying that; I just haven't seen their report.
Second, the influence of free spectrum and standards-based equipment at 5 GHz will provide an important wedge into the market. Yes, being unlicensed spectrum, it will suffer from some limitations, but the fact is that it will give providers an important entry point, which will begin to introduce the economies of scale that predispose still lower price points. If it were not for the FCC decision, last May, banning coded OFDM from 2.4 GHz (in contravention to the rest of the world) such networks would be in existence in the US today. This will be a very cost-effective and competitive entry point.
The NLOS issue is vastly overstated, IMO. Given the already impressive ability of coded OFDM to overcome NLOS issues, the frequencies at which it will operate, and future lower price points, accessing hard-to-reach customers will become easier. The solutions, go beyond, but do not exclude conventional macro/micro/picocell heirarchies.
The discussions that I have seen on this thread ignore the phenomenon of the piranha network. Such networks start in areas of local demand, usually in the enterprise market, are internally funded by profitable growth, and expand outward, accreting additional customers as demand increases, and backfilling to greater density at the same time. Viewed on national scale, such piranhas could be viewed as cultures in a petri dish: they will eventually extend and merge into national networks. In their growth, they are the opposite of the traditional "build it and they will come" model.
Finally, the prevailing psychology: I will offer the story, told by a friend, who has an investment in a wireless infrastructure company. This company had two connections to the outside world: one wireless, and the other, a wired backup.
Recently, they finally disconnected the ruinously expensive wired backup. Reason? The wireless connection was far more reliable than the wired backup. They now use another wireless backup. As an executive said, "If it can happen here, you can imagine the perceptual problem we're dealing with out there."
Frank's "raised eyebrow", on the question of contention and infinite spectral capacity was noted. I wouldn't presume to speak for him, but if I read his unstated objection correctly, I agree with what I think he was going to say.
Yet the term "high-speed" that has been applied to coded OFDM networks is a misnomer: more correctly, I think the term should be "high capacity". Very roughly speaking, the (eventual) same infrastructure cost should give the carrier somewhere from 2 to 4 times as many paying customers, who will be assured of superior reception/transmission, nomadic usage, and potentially, as cellular density deepens, mobile usage.
I have no wish to "twist the arm" of anyone on this thread as regards BBFW. I have corresponded privately with some of you on the subject. My own belief is that many on this thread have a fixed mindset on the matter, deriving largely from a "wired" past, and have not objectively examined the question. That is understandable, and of course, I could be completely wrong.
If I'm wrong, so much the worse for my investment dollars.
No offense intended, but I am betting against the prevailing thought here: I think that the impact of this technology has been badly underestimated.
JM2C ;-)
Jim |
