I am cross posting this from another list as Mr. Leary makes a good point (even though it is a bit of a plug for Alvarion's BreezeACCESS boxes). Not all unlicensed (aka license-exempt, non-licensed, etc.) is "WiFi" / 802.11. The press is confusing the IEEE protocol with "unlicensed wireless". BAWUG has never said that 802.11 is the only way to go. We should be using the right size hammer for the job. 802.11 is just one tool in the box.
Tim ----- Forwarded message from Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- From: Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [among others] Subject: License-exempt wireless broadband is not Wi-Fi (was Interesting Congressional Initiative) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:20:17 -0800 Dear Unlicensed Wireless Broadband Providers, competitive vendor colleagues, trade representatives, and bcc'ed press interests: As the below story once again reveals, anyone that writes about unlicensed assumes it is Wi-Fi. Now the story of Sen. Boxer and Sen. Allen's proposed bill has become a Wi-Fi story when it started out as an unlicensed story about solving the broadband inequity in underserved market. This has truly reached epidemic proportions and it has dangerous policy implications for us all. Unlicensed broadband has never been synonymous with Wi-Fi, and in 2002 and going into 2003, this is more true than ever. Why is this bad? Because each time it happens, it makes Wi-Fi look much more powerful than it is, when in fact Wi-Fi deployments in outdoor broadband are fast slowing as application specific gear from vendors like Alvarion, Trango, Motorola, Waverider, Redline and many others are increasing drammatically in scope and scale. Don't get me wrong, I love the implications for 802.11b (or .a/.g or UWB or whatever dominant standard(s) holds sway) as it relates to the last 100 feet. The possibilities are almost boundless and very exciting ranging from the much bandied "hot spot" to automotive telemetry. But that says nothing about the last mile or specifically addresses the goals of the bill proposed, which seeks to specifically meet the needs of broadband inequity in under served markets. Like you, we are entirely focused on addressing that last mile inequity problem, and how many of you are Wi-Fi? We here all know that Wi-Fi is NOT the best unlicensed answer to this problem. Infact, many of you have matured and moved to application specific unlicensed solutions explicitly because of the short comings of Wi-Fi. In some ways, this is like a bad nightmare that has become self perpetuating. I can't even recall anymore how many articles labeling something as "WI-Fi" were actually talking about non-Wi-Fi projects. A recent press example? Our Japan SpeedNet project in Tokyo - the largest unlicensed deployment in the world for access - with 40,000 BreezeACCESS CPE (23,000 so far deployed) in 2.4GHz was called a major Wi-Fi hot spot deployment (when SpeedNet had specifically rejected Wi-Fi after a major trial). The latest conference example? I was in Kansas for a Rural Broadband conference with a keynote from Senator Brownback, and the conference host called Kansas' biggest unlicensed deployment Wi-Fi, when it was actually an ALvariopn BreezeACCESS deployment. And I seen numerous examples of other vendor's deployments labeled as Wi-Fi. Our latest internal count shows over 800 North American operators (of very differing scales to be sure) deploying Alvarion for wireless broadband - fixed and even mobile, but none of these are Wi-Fi. It is time this industry creates it's own Wi-Fi-like "brand" that all non-Wi-Fi can use (e.g. UWIN for unlicensed wireless Internet). It needs to happen before it is too late. It is time we step out of our respective cocoons and agree to cooperatively attack this damaging perception. I will volunteer to create a template letter that all can use to make it known you are solving the broadband inequity problem, but are not Wi-Fi based. It could be sent to anyone involved in writing articles or affecting policy. And if you are an operator doing broadband wireless, and you are not using Wi-Fi, make sure EVERYONE knows it. Your customers, your employees, you mayor and local officials, your state representatives, and your federal congressional members. Or else we will turn around one day with rules written based on a fiction. And yes, Alvarion still sells about 8 figures worth of Wi-Fi compliant 802.11b. I just see this as a very real problem as political fervor builds. Recent dialogue with a few senate staffers tell me it is, and in doing so, they reflectively start talking about Wi-Fi. I look forward to your input. And for you press contacts, thank you for your indulgence. King regards to all, Patrick J. Leary Chief Evangelist, Alvarion, Inc. Executive Committee Member, WCA/LEA [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 352.592.5409 Cell: 770.331.5849 Fax: 509.479.2374 WI-FI JOINS BROADBAND ACCESS DEBATE Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and George Allen (R-VA) plan to introduce a bill to ensure that Wi-Fi options are seriously considered as a viable method of broadband deployment. Entitled "The Jumpstart Broadband Act," the bill asks the FCC to make more free-to-use spectrum available in bandwidths strong enough to send signals across several miles at a time. The bill also sets guidelines to prevent signal interference, which is currently a problem with Wi-Fi networks. "This debate has reached an unproductive stalemate and fails to consider that other technologies are available that can jump-start consumer-driven investment and demand in broadband services," the senators said in a letter to colleagues. [SOURCE: CNET News, AUTHOR: Ben Charny] <http://news.com.com/2100-1033-966667.html?tag=fd_top> ----- End forwarded message ----- -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
