Tom DeReggi wrote: > The one thing that had initially scared me was large players moving into > wireless.
They seem to be actively pursuing it. They provide a lot of hotspots at places like starbucks and allow DSL users to connect for free. SBC has been doing it for some time, and now Verizon is as well. > For example a Comcast or Verizon saying "hey, OK we'll use PArt-15 spectrum > to, and apply for teh grants ". Except for the part about the ridiculous amount of transparency it would bring. But that doesn;t scare me anymore. > The reason is its to hard to make businesses work for unlicensed. Oh I don't think so. They have enough money to do it where they have sufficient middle mile infrastructure built out. If they wanted to, they would simply deploy wifi as the last mile instead of DSL. It's a well understood operational model, as evidenced by the folks on this list. Sure there are quirks here and there, but the vast majority of posts to this list discuss business models, threats, and "can someone service area x". Which is perfectly fine. :) I'm just comparing it to other lists I'm on, where things are in the very early stages (like open source GSM stacks for example). So the telcos simply didn't do wifi because they have existing copper in the ground and make plenty from that. If they ever decide to go into small areas, I can say with about 100% certainty they won't do anything but wireless (at least in the typical consumer price point range). I mean isn't that what the WISPS are doing now? It's the only viable model near as I can tell. This is why I think that the vast majority (say 90% or so) of the broadband money should go to building out the middle mile from things like LAMBDA rail. In fact they put in a proposal offering up their fiber network for use to build middle mile off of. Then just hang wifi / wimax off of that. It doesn't > scale well. But it works well for small providers. > I'm referring to manageing and troubleshooting the last mile is to > difficult, unless the party is intimently involved with the last mile > network. Um yeah.... verizon and sbc are all over that with a little thing called DSL :) > Its hard to outsource it to central support on the other side of the > country. They do that pretty well already. At least on my business class connection. > Of course there will be consolidation, but I think consolidation will > eventually start to become counter productive, as the consolidation starts > to become to larger. Maybe yes, maybe no. I think it's hard to say. > > Thedeath of small wireless companies will not be from consolidation. It > will be because an area will reach a state where it no longer needs wireless > to the scale that will be large enough to support the small provider. When > consumers are given the choice to have video over broadband, for the same > price as broadband, most will likely choose it. > > The question is whether Satelite TV will survive? As long as it has a viable > percentage of market share, there will always be a market for wireless > broadband, that doesn't have to operate at fiber to the home speeds, to be > valuable. Wireless is more than capable to adequately offer the double play > (voice). > > When Fiber to the home is made possible by grants, its not the cable cos > that are hurt, its the satillite providers that are hurt more. Well except that's not viable. Fiber is SUPER expensive and not a viable option in anything but major urban areas. Wireless is far more bang for the buck. One can get a substantial amount of bandwidth, and do QoS tricks etc. But you all know that. :) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
