http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/206071/fcc_approves_white_space_wifi_on_steroids.html

FCC Approves White Space “Wi-Fi on Steroids”

By Tony Bradley, PCWorld

With a unanimous, bipartisan vote of the FCC commissioners, the unused television broadcast spectrum has been unleashed for use in wireless networking. Using the broadcast white space for wireless networks will usher in billions in investment and innovation, and could fundamentally change the nature of wireless networking.

who are you? write to me at thejoff@gmail.com?

This is a very interesting topic. For years, the conventional wisdom has been that Wi-Fi is a disruptive technology and presents a competitive challenge to conventional mobile networks. The truth is that Wi-Fi (as a proxy for unlicensed operation) may offer some opportunities for competition, but it is more of a complementary technology than a disruptive one. Using licensed spectrum, carriers can always offer more robust, secure and reliable networks than Wi-Fi. I have recently read that some of the new Wi-Fi networks can offer five nines reliability (99.999%), but even so they will always have to content with a higher probability of interference. Neither licensed nor unlicensed operation holds an absolute advantage over the other. However, there is the chance for carriers to offer an entry level service and a premium service, or a portable and a truly mobile service.

I, however, disagree that a network of unlicensed radio equipment is some sort of natural monopoly, esthetics be damned. Granted, due to lower power and less in building penetration smaller sizes are cell and more network equipment is needed to provide unlicensed networks. But, this does not necessarily mean that there will be an antenna attached to every lamppost or traffic light. Even so, overbuilding networks is inherently a good thing. We want to build competition into the access infrastructure. To the extent that overbuilding is not economically viable, roaming arrangement between networks will eventually arise. In such cases and in smaller markets, a “muni” network can make a lot of sense.

That said, an integrated Wi-Fi and LTE network is an interesting prospect.

Here is my take on the subject: http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/02/wi-fi-wi-not/

Ken Carter

Generally, we’re finding mobile operators moving to use every tool they have at their disposal — more spectrum, LTE sooner, traffic management, tiered plans, femtocells (usually in a controlled way, rather than a broad and random consumer play), and Wi-Fi — because the smart-phone data traffic issue is growing so rapidly worse, and no single tool (including LTE) will solve the problem all by itself.

Cheers,

Steven Glapa

The questions as to whether telcos are/aren’t already doing so is an interesting one. Looked at offload via an outdoor lens, I would agree that uptake is underwhelming, but I think you also need to look at their indoor deployments. Every iPhone user sitting in Starbucks and using Wi-Fi is a user that’s not on the 3G network. In this respect, Wi-Fi Hot Spots are also a key part of the offload story, and one that is often overlooked. By the same token, enterprise and home APs accomplish the same thing, at least from an AT&T perspective, and cost them nothing per bit.

The challenges to outdoor Wi-Fi deployment haven’t really changed. Site acquisition, power and backhaul are all required, making urban deployments a challenge. Privately controlled venues, like sports stadiums, arenas, campuses, etc., are far better candidate locations as a result (or at least locations with less friction to deploy). This is also one of the reasons that Cablevision is able to deploy so readily – they control the infrastructure. Overhead cable strand is powered, wired backhaul, at the same height as light poles and runs in front of commercial, high traffic locations throughout their footprint.

Keep up the good work…

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter