Patrick, thank you for this contribution, and first of all let me emphasize I never said "nefarious"! and you know as well as I do, that companies within the economy who behave inefficiently, by financial measures, disappear. It is determinism and darwinism. We're all prisoners, here.
Your central point seems to be, again, better technology than WiFi exists for long outdoor links -- My point is: whatever costs more than $100-$200 per end-user node apparently, cannot compete in the market against DSL and cable. Perhaps $500. Whatever. The top-down model of wireless ISP, has not been competitive against DSL or cable as far as I can see; if anything it might be a dollar cheaper or a 100KB faster. I don't expect Guilders' telecosm, but I do expect 256K for less than $60/month at this stage. The CLECs are gone and you guys are gone too. ricochet, art, all that stuff.. gone. (I don't mean any disrespect, just telling it as I see it.) WiFi *can* be competitive for the last 500 feet, if anybody cared enough to put a router in the nodes for at least 2 -3 hops. I object to the frequent characterization in the press, as a 100-foot solution. I've got a WiFi AP and 4-port router on my desk that cost $50. There is not a damn reason in the world, it could not be running some basic 3-hop router, with two more radios, like the WET-11 plugged into the ethernet ports. I see WiFi radios implemented in ethernet and usb under $50. There is not any reason Netgear or Linksys couldn't build a little, miniature "Motorola Canopy" box with 3 radios and 3 little patch antennas at the end of 5-foot spokes. It wouldn't be any uglier than the TV antennas around here. Stick it on the roof, aim the patches at my friends houses, let the radios negotiate their frequency and amplitude settings for fixed, end-to-end links, and we can aggregate nice little bunches of users for ISPs to service with fiber, wireless or whatever. That's a 500 foot solution not a 100 foot solution. (I live in the suburbs, not in high-rise areas) Now, I don't want to be stuck with this WiFi solution for the long term, anymore than you do. But it *would* get us down the road 3-5 years and people will be true believers by then, they will replace the things on the roof. In my honest opinion it's more likely to come from laser devices than you guys in the wireless industry. I see the 802.16 stuff as very much a hub-control model and everybody will fight it. You'll run right into antenna regulations and determined, grass roots resistance, look, I attend a lot of hearings around here, about cellphone towers. That game is over. It's already been lost. Give us owner-operated clusters. Todd At 01:46 PM 12/1/2002, you wrote:
Todd, Respectfully, as I noted in my first post, I am exceedingly reluctant to engage in marketing via this forum and it is not my intent. I therefore will not try not to address specific criticisms or endorsement anyone may have regarding Alvarion in this forum (except to say your cost data is way off). My presence here is as an expert on the commercial side of this industry and a hope I can share perspectives perhaps no adequately understood. I will address your comments as it relates to the industry of unlicensed broadband: The IEEE - the same group that brought you 802.11b (and 802.11 before that) - is currently putting the finishing touches on 80216a, which once ratified will be the first IEEE standard specific to wireless in a MAN (WMAN) environment for bands sub-10GHz. The IEEE teams understand the technical distinctions inherent in a WLAN vs. a WMAN environment. 802.16a seeks to address the reality of the large metropolitan systems covering hundreds of square miles. (You make a note about mesh, well 802.16a includes a mesh option.)
You are describing a capitalist model in which a telecom operator or ISP services the user from end-to-end. I am fundamentally opposed to the top- down vision and advocate *at least* 10 to 20 users need to be aggregated in groups at the edge of the Internet. This addresses essential privacy and democracy issues, as well as ensuring efficient market of providers and some symmetry in the power balance between the citizen, the content provider, and ISPs. http://www.gldialtone.com/BackFenceLAN.htm
Of course ALL current professional unlicensed wireless broadband systems are proprietary -- no standard existed. Instead of waiting and until we had a standard, industry continued to innovate its way through the problems inherent in using any 802.11 derivation in a WMAN application. Respectfully, YOU may not need the features companies like ours and others have enabled. A few thousand commercially operating WISPs however disagree (and the larger they get, the more likely they are to disagree!). Any innovation we have added is a direct result of operator input, not some nefarious attempt to remain proprietary. A problem rears its ugly head that puts a barrier in fornt of an operator, we and others innovate to overcome that barrier. That is the beauty of the free market in operation within the confines of the regulations we find ourselves. Today, it is perfectly possible to erect a single tower that can enable as much as 300 square miles of coverage (in some areas) that can realistically support hundreds of users. To do this with consumer grade Wi-Fi is impossible and would require many times more towers, which means more site leases and more backhauls. A Wi-Fi model would also add hugely to operational costs, require driver support, elimate quality control (therefore putting customer satisfaction at risk and increasing churn). The business economics extend FAR beyond any simplistic discussion of CPE cost, though CPE cost is a critical part of the complete equation. One must account for all the elements of CAPEX. One must address all the billing issues (by time? protocol? apllication? tiers? etc.). One must address customer aquisition costs. Etc. ad nauseum.
I advocate AAA or CRANE or whatever billing can be implemented at each node, so that each node can be reimbursed for its resources costs, efficiently, within an owner-operated last mile.
HOWEVER, the Wi-Fi implementation reigns supreme for the last 100 feet to hotspot users. Such could be transient users (such as the cliche coffee shop, an RV park, an airport, a truck stop, etc.) or they could be semi-fixed subscribers extending the last mile (such as retirement home tenants, boats moored in a marina, dormitory resident students, etc.). Patrick J. Leary Chief Evangelist, Alvarion, Inc. Executive Committee Member, WCA/LEA [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 760.494.4717 Cell: 770.331.5849 Fax: 509.479.2374 -----Original Message----- From: Todd Boyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 1:12 PM To: Patrick Leary; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [BAWUG] Greetings BAWUG (A BWA advocate hopes he is welcomed) At 04:15 PM 11/30/2002, Patrick Leary wrote: >Hello BAWUG, >My name is Patrick Leary. I am known as the Chief Evangelist for Alvarion, >the major wireless broadband vendor. That was an incredibly great post, but what has Alvarion done to realize any P2P community-operated network cloud?
-- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
