Patrick - Thanks for this, and welcome. It should be good to have someone online who can help decipher FCC policy, assuming that is even possible without a room full of lawyers.
Anyway, I found your critical points very interesting and I'm sure they will generate some lively discussion here. I do have some quick comments myself, however and have inserted them below. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Patrick Leary > Sent: 01 December 2002 00:16 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [BAWUG] Greetings BAWUG (A BWA advocate hopes he is welcomed) > > > Hello BAWUG, > My name is Patrick Leary. I am known as the Chief Evangelist for Alvarion, > the major wireless broadband vendor. Like BAWUG contributors > David Reed and > Dewayne Hendricks, I was a panelist for one of the Spectrum Policy Task > Force's unlicensed spectrum public workshops. Tim Pozar was kind enough to > provide me with a link to this respected list. > > My joining here is not for the sake of marketing, it is a > personal desire to > engage the public network community in important dialogue. In my view, the > two groups of license-exempt advocates have run along parallel tracks for > too long. I seek to intersect and convey what I believe are critical > universal concepts (explained further below) that should unite us. My > specific areas of expertise include the following: > > 1. In depth knowledge of the wireless broadband market, licensed and > unlicensed, but with a special love and focus on license exempt. This > includes an extensive comprehension of subtle concepts frankly > lost on many > within my own side of the wireless broadband community. > > 2. Part 15 with broad knowledge of the certification requirements > as opposed > to commonly believed myths, including a few which I see (perhaps > incorrectly) permeate the public network community. > > 3. Very broad knowledge of the various business models of unlicensed > wireless broadband as a commercial service. I have vast understanding of a > great many deployments, many of which I am involved from a vendor > perspective and many more as an industry promoter with personal > relationships with the operators. > > 4. Real world experience with what is possible with unlicensed > (and what has > been done), the state of the market, as well as trends. > > This work is a vocation to me, fostered by an absolute belief > that broadband > is the critical element required to bring sustained economic growth. In > particular, the ability of unlicensed wireless to enable communities to > seize their own broadband destiny. > > The three critical points I hope to impart to this community are thus: > > 1. Do not lose sight that what is important is the public policy that > enabled unlicensed to emerge in the first place. Wi-Fi is like > the Model T. > It is very important for all the same reasons the Model T was important. > But, what enabled the Model T was the innovation enabled by new > manufacturing processes. Consider spectrum policy as a similar enabler of > innovation. > > Accordingly, too much focus on the 1st mass accepted byproduct of that > policy risks missing the critical reality that it is the ability of policy > to enable innovation. The only thing that must be protected and > expanded is > policy that promotes innovation. Do not seek to protect a static byproduct > of that policy. > > If we remain effective stewards of that policy, I assure you that > innovation > far more compelling than the Model T will emerge. I'm a bit curious as to how you feel that spectrum policy is an enabler of innovation. Certainly there is overwhelming evidence that government policy actually stifles innovation more often than not, so I'm a bit unclear as to how it can help in this case. Does the FCC have some sort of crystal ball to help them predetermine which technologies will succeed in the long run so that they may somehow support only the ones which will clearly win? Sounds like this could result in a self-fulfilling prophesy by those 'in the know'... > 2. I urge this community to understand that what is being constructed here > is no less than the next generation telecom infrastructure. Like David > Isenburg, I believe - no, I know - that IP will topple the > circuit switched > world. We are deep in that tumultuous evolutionary process now. > > Therefore, it is critical in my view that these networks be taken as > seriously as Ma Bell took hers decades ago when policy and subsidy brought > us arguably the best voice infrastructure in the world. Should we > miss this > point and allow the IP wireless infrastructure to be a loose patchwork of > cobbled together networks, we risk ending up with a third world last mile > infrastructure. To me a 'loose patchwork of cobbled together networks' sounds more like a free-market rather than some evil that need be repressed. So are you then proposing a Soviet Style, Central Planning Board or equivalent to 'efficiently' manage public wireless services? I always thought that Ma Bell was broken up into a decentralized Baby Bell scenario to help facilitate better service and foster innovation. (per your first point) > > 3. Lastly, I caution this community not to confuse the last mile with the > last 100 feet. It is appropriate and unavoidable that Wi-Fi or > the emergent > dynamically combined standards (or perhaps UWB) become the last 100 feet. > However, no hotspot is "hot" without the last mile access from which it is > fed. In that world, deployments in unlicensed through North America do not > use Wi-Fi. They use systems enabled by the innovation promoting > ambiguity of > Part 15. Innovation in the last mile using unlicensed long ago transcended > Wi-Fi limitations, even those systems using the same 2.4GHz band. In fact, > even those commercial providers of wireless Internet service (mostly the > current province of small, non-metro providers) that use 802.11b largely > customize away their compatibility with Wi-Fi. Software overlays > such as the > Karlnet polling software serve as a prime example of such. I agree that the current hotspot model is presently dependent on last-mile, legacy backhaul networks for interconnection - or fixed wireless. Now I can't speak for everyone here, but I believe the ultimate vision for public WiFi, as opposed to proprietary methods is that of mesh networking. With mesh networking, the Internet slowly migrates from the traditional copper/fibre backbone to predominately existing within an 'isotropic wireless ether'. In this regard, I'm not so sure how your last-mile concepts apply, as the network is no longer functioning top down. I also know this is not just a blue sky vision by the hacker community due to the number of 3G operators that are scared to death of the recent public WiFi and Bluetooth incursions. Are you suggesting that this vision is somehow invalid? thanks in advance. > > Currently, I estimate their are at least 2,500 commercial unlicensed > wireless broadband service providers ranging in size in a single > market from > a handful of customers to over 4,000. I know of many systems where each > covers thousands of square miles using unlicensed wireless systems. These > systems share their legacy with 802.11b, but they are no more > Wi-Fi than the > Willys Jeep was a Model T. > > I look forward to a thoughtful dialogue and I hope I am welcomed here. > > Kind regards, > > Patrick J. Leary > Chief Evangelist, Alvarion, Inc. > Executive Committee Member, WCA/LEA > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ph: 760.494.4717 (VONAGE VoIP service) > Cell: 770.331.5849 > Fax: 509.479.2374 (eFAX) > > > -- > general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> > [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
