Disruptive Tendencies

AT&T Wi-Fi: How long to a billion?

In October 2007, AT&T acquired Wayport for $275m, and its national footprint of 20,000 Hot Spots in such high-profile locations as Starbucks and McDonalds. For many of us in the industry, this was a seminal event, as it was the first time that a major licensed spectrum holder embraced Wi-Fi (and unlicensed spectrum) as a major piece of its service offering.

Since then, AT&T has continued to be the poster child for its use of Wi-Fi for 3G data offload in areas of cellular congestion. Generally speaking, these locations can be described as areas where people eat, shop and congregate, and includes not only traditional Hot Spot locations, but also high capacity venues, college campuses, special events, and high-foot traffic urban centres.

Today’s announcement of 106.9m connections shows impressive, historic year-over-year growth, but it’s interesting to project forward.

• With over 90m subscribers, this number translates into 1.2 connections/subscriber/quarter.
• With around 30m smartphone users, this number translates into ~1.1 connection/smartphone user/month.

And keep in mind that, with free Wi-Fi at venues like Starbucks, some of these connections are from non-AT&T subscribers, so the number of connections/subscriber is going to be lower.

The following chart shows the number of AT&T Wi-Fi connections, as reported over the past 11 quarters. It’s interesting to note that AT&T has been able to materially impact the slope of the curve. When AT&T and Apple enabled seamless, transparent auto log-on for the iPhone in July 2008, the slope clearly changed. In July 2010, AT&T opened up its Starbucks locations to free Wi-Fi, the slope changed once again.

So how big can it get?

Clearly, one can imagine an AT&T quarterly report touting 1 billion connections (PREDICTION: Q3/2011), a 9X increase from today.

IMO, the biggest obstacle is subscriber mindshare and user intervention. People walk into a Starbucks today, and they know there’s Wi-Fi, so they’ll turn it on. But unless they know there’s Wi-Fi in the football stadium, rocking out at the concert, or walking around Times Square, users are far less likely to have their Wi-Fi radios turned on.

Maybe iOS v5 will be able to sense (or know via GPS) that there is an AT&T SSID nearby, and automatically turn on Wi-Fi, removing user intervention from the Wi-Fi equation totally. Now that would be cool, and welcomed by service providers the world over.

Wi-Fi for service providers? Onwards, and upwards!

One billion connections? Here we come!

 

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

 

Spectrum is Like Beachfront

(Originally posted at http://www.von.com/blogs/guest/2009/12/spectrum-is-like-beachfront.aspx)

Plato is credited with having noted that, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” This is certainly true in any discussion about spectrum. As with beachfront property, the thing about spectrum is that they’re not making any more of it. Recently, Blair Levin, who heads the FCC’s broadband program, acknowledged, “There’s not enough of it,” referring to spectrum. It was also noted that “several Tier I carriers are arguing for more licensed spectrum to keep pace with customers’ bandwidth demands, especially for mobile broadband.”

The FCC’s 700MHz auction raised $19.6 billion, with $16 billion coming from just 2 operators: Verizon and AT&T (National coverage maps). While I’m sure the FCC would love to run more multibillion-dollar spectrum auctions, is it really necessary to do so?

There are lots of moving parts in delivering a mobile broadband service, but it’s interesting to look at them holistically.

Different frequencies have very different propagation characteristics. It has been said that the best thing about 700MHz spectrum is its propagation characteristics. It has also been said that the worst thing about 700MHz spectrum is its propagation characteristics. It goes forever, has good in-building penetration, but these attributes present challenges from a frequency re-use perspective. Great for coverage. Not so great for capacity.

Conversely, the propagation characteristics in the 2GHz and 5GHz ranges are very different. These have limited range and poor in-building penetration, but these attributes are advantageous from a frequency re-use perspective. Poor for wide-area coverage. Great for capacity.

With the explosion in mobile broadband, the question today is whether the delivery of wireless broadband is a coverage play or a capacity play? And if capacity, what does the network look like?

Cell size and capacity have an inverse relationship. Macrocells, by design, are built to cover wide areas. However, the radios, spectrum and backhaul are all shared elements. The more users you have within a cell competing for these resources, the lower the throughput to each user. To increase capacity over an area, mobile operators pack in more, smaller cells (micro and picocells, and at the extreme low end of the spectrum, femtocells are being contemplated).

Andy Germano, vice chairman of the Femto Forum, said it very well recently when referring to the deployment of 4G networks: “Rather than go from big to small, they can go from small to big,” referring to cellular topology.

We know that, even today, it is challenging to keep up with the data capacity demands being driven by smart phones and other mobile devices. This is due to three factors: user demand for bandwidth, spectrum availability and cellular topology.

AT&T has been at the forefront of addressing the issue of adding data capacity to deliver a superior user experience for its iPhone subscribers by embracing Wi-Fi and unlicensed spectrum. Recently, at SUPERCOMM, John Stankey, president and CEO of AT&T Operations, stated:

“I don’t think a single macro wireless network is sustainable over time, given the pace of spectrum availability and what’s actually out there in terms of fixed spectrum. I think the reality is that there will be macro and micro networks. We’re starting down that path at AT&T, focusing on how we make Wi-Fi and licensed spectrum a more seamless experience for customers.”

So back to the beach.

There’s 80MHz of free, unlicensed spectrum, at 2.4GHz, being used today to augment data capacity by a leading licensed spectrum owner. Very interesting, but it’s still a small and pretty crowded stretch of beach. However, there’s 450MHz of spectrum, in the 5GHz bands, that is a beautiful stretch of beach – much less crowded, and ideal for small cells and frequency re-use, i.e. high-capacity locations.

Great stretch of beach, but how do I get there from here? Wi-Fi (802.11b/g) supports 2.4GHz and there are no 802.11a devices. The answer is 802.11n. Devices, such as the new Apple iPod Touch, are shipping with chipsets that support .11n and both frequency bands. Although the 5GHz radios are currently disabled, it is not unreasonable to expect that any upcoming versions of the iPhone, and other Wi-Fi enabled devices, will offer dual-band capabilities.

So, we will see 4G services rolled out at 700MHz, which will bring LTE to a big chunk of the country. But instead of waiting years (and paying billions) for more licensed spectrum to add capacity, I would say to Mr. Levin, “There’s a beautiful stretch of public beach up at this end, just waiting to be used.”

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

Martin Suter is vice president of business development at BelAir Networks, the global market share leader in service provider Wi-Fi, enabling 3G data offload for wireless carriers, quad-play for cable operators, and managed WLAN business services. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise. Prior to Cohda, he was vice president of business development at MeshNetworks Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola. Martin also was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Teradata. Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and Sun.

 

Mobile Internet: Fundy-esque!

(Original published at http://www.von.com/blogs/guest/2009/06/mobile-internet-fundy-esque.aspx )

In 1963, JFK is credited with having observed that, “A rising tide raises all ships.” The evidence is overwhelming that the mobile Internet tide is unprecedented in scale and that it’s coming in fast. Anyone, or any company trying to resist, inevitably will be washed away.

The launch of the Palm Pre this past week has given the industry an opportunity to debate whether the Pre is an iPhone killer. David Pogue, of the New York Times, has described the Sprint-Nextel/Palm pairing as “a pair of sad sack losers team up to defeat the smug athletic golden boy,” going on the suggest that it’s the “Palm Pre vs. iPhone.”

To its credit, Time presents a much more balanced view, pointing out that “Palm doesn't need to steal any of its competitors' customers to thrive.” This seems to be the view being (wisely) espoused by Jon Rubinstein, executive chairman of Palm Inc. as well, who rightly notes, in the same article, that the smartphone market is “large and expanding.”

Rubinstein is right in suggesting that the smartphone market is not zero-sum. Yes, there is a heightened need for device manufacturers to deliver a compelling user experience. Apple has set the bar extremely high, but the fact remains that there are “4 billion mobile phones in the world today, after all, and Palm says only about 10% of them are smart phones. During the next few years, that number may reach 50%. Morgan Stanley Research even described the migration to Internet-connected mobile devices as ‘one of the biggest opportunities in the history of the technology industry.’"

I would argue that Apple will continue to maintain its market share on the platform and device sides even as this market grows for one simple reason: iTunes. None of the other vendors has delivered a seamless content and application management platform from the desktop to the device, coupled with an accepted micro-transaction platform. Microsoft had an opportunity to do so with Windows Media Player, but was so tied up in antitrust litigation, it missed the window of opportunity and was left in the dust.

Apple’s the poster child; the launch of iPhone 3G S makes it even more so. Palm’s the underdog. But what of the other 800 pound gorillas?

“Google: Expect 18 Android Phones by Year’s End,” “BlackBerry Storm 2 could hit as early as June,” “HTC: Touch Pro 2 coming to North America,” “Samsung Unveils World's First 12 Megapixel Camera Phone,” etc.

Throw in Netbooks, gaming devices, cameras and you’ve got a rising tide of mobile data that is unprecedented. Dare I say, it is even Fundy-esque*!

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

(*Canada’s Bay of Fundy purportedly has the highest tides in the world.)

Martin Suter is vice president of business development at BelAir Networks, the global market share leader in service provider Wi-Fi, enabling 3G data offload for wireless carriers, quad-play for cable operators, and managed WLAN business services. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise. Prior to Cohda, he was vice president of business development at MeshNetworks Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola. Martin also was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Teradata. Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and Sun.

 

Femtos: Consumer-Subsidized Network Buildout?

(Original posted at http://www.von.com/blogs/guest/2009/05/femtos-consumer-subsidized-network-buildout.aspx )

Recently, it was reported that the 3GPP, the Femto Forum and the Broadband Forum have reached agreement on standardization issues.

So what is a femto?

Wikipedia defines a femto as: “a small cellular base station, typically designed for use in residential or small business environments. It connects to the service provider’s network via broadband (such as DSL or cable).”

Femtocells are the carriers’ implicit admission that they can’t deliver either the coverage or capacity required for an optimal experience to consumers or enterprises. So, the “answer,” is to shift the network build-out and backhaul costs to consumer.

But aren’t femtos already ubiquitous today? What is an 802.11 AP, if not a femto? T-Mobile “gets it” today, with its UMA service T-Mobile@Home, which allows customers to use Wi-Fi instead of cellular, for calls made from home. It shifts capacity from T-Mobile cell towers to indoor Wi-Fi APs, and the benefit to the consumer is that that they’re not paying for cellular minutes.

Wi-Fi APs deliver wireless capacity throughout homes, enterprises, hotels, venues, retailers, restaurants, airports and Main Streets around the world. Devices of all kind are able to connect seamlessly, and they leverage the existence of wired broadband backhaul.

So another way of looking at it may be that a “femto” is a cellular AP. But if I’ve got a Wi-Fi AP, why would I want or need a femto, especially if it’s something for which I have to pay?

Do you think wireless operators will subsidize femtos? Not a chance. Look at the PVR or modem/gateway model for your answer. Even if you don’t have to fork out the upfront capex, consumers will pay a monthly rental fee to cover the cost of the cellular base station. Once again, the cost burden is shifted to the consumer, but in this case it’s the costs of a network buildout and backhaul.

As a mentor of mine once said, “I can see how that’s good for you, but how’s that good for me?”

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

Martin Suter is vice president of business development at BelAir Networks, the global market share leader in service provider Wi-Fi, enabling 3G data offload for wireless carriers, quad-play for cable operators, and managed WLAN business services. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise. Prior to Cohda, he was vice president of business development at MeshNetworks Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola. Martin also was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Teradata. Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and Sun.

 

Wi-Fi: No Longer the Rodney Dangerfield of Wireless

(Original posted at http://www.von.com/blogs/guest/2009/05/wi-fi-no-longer-the-rodney-dangerfield-of-wireles.aspx )

 

I may be dating myself here, but I’m sure many remember Rodney Dangerfield’s famous line – “I get no respect.” Until recently, that has been the general attitude toward Wi-Fi in certain circles, but the tide appears to have turned. Finally, Wi-Fi is starting to get the respect that it deserves.

Much has been written this past week on the rumored partnership, between Verizon and Boingo, as first reported in the WSJ. Yet to be confirmed, it is expected that this will allow Verizon broadband subscribers to roam across Boingo hot spots, at no additional cost. If this is the case, it suggests that Verizon is a fast-follower (in telco terms), to comparable offerings from AT&T and Cablevision for their subscribers. In no way does this diminish the significance of this potential announcement – it is a bold move by an 800-pound gorilla and one which I’m sure was heavily debated internally.

So why would a service provider embrace Wi-Fi today? The motivation depends on the type of service provider we’re talking about, but the answer really lies in the fact that the number and type of mobile devices and data-rich applications has reached the tipping point, and that it’s been embraced by their subscribers.

Wireline broadband providers have been in the Wi-Fi business for years now, with Wi-Fi-enabled, home gateways as the standard CPE for cable and DSL broadband customers. But now, these same subscribers are walking around with dual-mode handsets, Wi-Fi cameras, gaming devices, netbooks and are demanding broadband connectivity, outside the home. It makes sense for these same service providers to enable a similar experience outside of the home as well. Not ubiquitous coverage, à la failed muni, but targeted coverage where they eat, shop and congregate.

But how do you make money if you’re giving away the service? The answer lies in the question: What’s a subscriber really worth?

All service providers report information like monthly or quarterly churn, average revenue per user (ARPU) and adjusted operating cash flow (AOCF). One way of quantifying the value of a subscriber is to calculate the net present value of the expected revenue stream (ARPU) or net cash flow (AOCF) over the average lifetime of a subscriber. Reducing churn, increasing ARPU and improving margins (AOCF) all have a positive impact on customer valuation.

Service providers constantly have to grapple with the “spend” per sub relative to the increase in value. Increasing ARPU is one way, but seldom realistic, given downward price pressure by competitive offerings from substitute providers. In many cases, maintaining ARPU by creating additional value-add is a more realistic approach.

Furthermore, upfront customer acquisition is expensive, so retaining that subscriber for as long as possible is critical. Service providers are finding that reducing churn is a key element in their financial success and long term viability. Those companies that are losing or that churn customers are valued very differently than those that are seeing net new subscriber adds.

This is a slightly simplistic explanation, but the market appears to be speaking. It is possible to generate an IRR that justifies the investment required to add Wi-Fi to an existing service offering. Wi-Fi is fast becoming table stakes for the major MSOs, wireless and wireline operators as they compete for a share of our wallet.

RIP Rodney.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter is vice president of business development at BelAir Networks, the global market share leader in service provider Wi-Fi, enabling 3G data offload for wireless carriers, quad-play for cable operators, and managed WLAN business services. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise. Prior to Cohda, he was vice president of business development at MeshNetworks Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola. Martin also was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Teradata. Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and Sun.

 

500 Percent

(Originally posted at http://www.von.com/blogs/guest/2009/04/500-percent.aspx )

During his CTIA keynote, Ivan Seidenberg, CEO of Verizon Communications, expressed his excitement “about the next generation of wireless – the one that will usher in growth that could see penetration rates of more than 500 percent for the mobile industry.” Other Verizon execs were equally giddy at the various breakout sessions that I attended.

Toasters, fridges – LTE is going to solve world hunger. Imagine the stickiness! How likely is subscriber defection if consumers need to replace their home appliances?

Thirteen years ago, at the inaugural JavaOne Conference in 1996, Scott McNeely launched Sun’s vision for Java, a lightweight programming language that would allow developers to write once and run everywhere, including microwaves, toasters, fridges, etc.

Ten years ago, in 1999, the Internet Home Alliance was formed, but in the early days it was more sizzle than steak, as it required extensive home wiring. Nonetheless, the M2M vision was being articulated:

“With the coming PC-plus era, Kenney and others expect a proliferation of connected devices. But Kenney says that gadgets aren't the solution. "It's not about more gadgets," he said. "I don't want a smart thermometer; I want simplicity. How about a clock radio that sets the thermometer for you when you turn it off at night? When you wake up, it could turn on the coffee or whatever."

Seven years ago, in 2002, Toshiba announced its Internet fridge, as did LG Electronics. Of course, the $360 billion by 2005 market sizing estimate appears to have been a little off, but the point is that other than trying to control the customer, there’s nothing new in Verizon’s “vision.”

As I listened to the presentations, I found myself wondering why the examples being cited required a WAN technology or licensed spectrum? Isn’t a WLAN technology, like Wi-Fi, a better fit for networking devices of all kinds in the home? Does Verizon think that LTE is going to replace Wi-Fi in the home?

One of the key talking points laid out by Verizon’s marketing department was about having a centralized support number. “Who do you call for support when all these devices are connected?” was one of the week’s mantras, and apparently Verizon’s value proposition.

Why would I pay a wireless carrier to add devices on my home network?

“Five hundred percent” is a great sound bite, but is it in our future?

This morning, I began to catalog the number of wireless Internet devices I have in my home: three laptops, one Netbook, one iPhone, three iPod Touches, one XBOX 360, two Sony PSPs, two EyeFi-enabled cameras, one printer, one backup hard drive, one Wi-Fi radio. Even without the wireless fridge, toaster, microwave, meter reader or washing machine, I’m at 16 Wi-Fi devices. How much does it cost me to connect each of these to the network using Wi-Fi? Nada. Have I ever felt a need to have a single number to call for support? Nope.

Five hundred percent isn’t the future. It’s the present. And I don’t have to have a wireless carrier provision every device. I don’t have to pay a service charge for every device. And I don’t have to worry about buying a new fridge every time I change service providers.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter is vice president of business development at BelAir Networks, a provider of broadband mesh solutions for Wi-Fi, WiMAX, 4.9 GHz Public Safety and 5.9 GHz ITS networks. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise. Prior to Cohda, he was vice president of business development at MeshNetworks Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola. Martin also was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Teradata. Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and Sun.

 

Mobile Internet Genie is Out of the Bottle

(Originally posted at http://www.von.com/blogs/guest/2009/04/mobile-internet-genie-is-out-of-bottle.aspx)

And it’s not going back...

What a week it’s been!

After blogging last month about the market disruption being caused by the combination of Wi-Fi and unlicensed spectrum, the industry reeled as it grappled with the implications of the release of Skype on the iPhone and iPod.

The buzz at CTIA was polarized around two ends of the spectrum — the incumbent wireless carriers, especially Verizon and its LTE plans, and the disruptors, led by Skype.

One of the characteristics of the climb to the “Peak of Inflated Expectations,” as articulated by Gartner, is that the only enterprises making money are conference organizers and magazine publishers. The ascent of LTE and the noise floor created by the buzz at CTIA certainly bears this out!

But LTE is just another technology. It has the potential to expand the adoption of the mobile Internet, but unlike Wi-Fi, spectrum owners that have a history of tightly controlled walled gardens will roll it out. The question is whether companies will continue to propagate a closed, walled garden approach or recognize this as the mobile Internet. There are interesting analogs in the fixed Internet that bear considering. AOL tried, for far too long, to contain its subscribers within the AOL controlled portion of the Web, and look at what’s happened to them. Does anybody remember CompuServe? Could the same thing happen to Verizon or Deutsche Telekom? Only time will tell.

The Internet has proven itself to be fertile ground for disruption. Look at how it has changed the music industry, newspapers, advertising, retailing, travel, residential voice and long distance service, and even the OS and office suite. ... Companies that “got it” on the fixed side have thrived, while those that resisted it have withered and died. Why should we expect the mobile Internet to be any different?

The availability of Skype on iPhones and iPods has, once again, brought the opposing forces into sharp contrast. Now faced with the potential loss of voice minutes, the wireless carriers are reacting in the only way they know how, by locking it out. AT&T is at least to be commended for allowing Skype traffic on its Wi-Fi network, while Deutsche Telekom companies are saying they will even restrict its use across the company’s Wi-Fi hot spots.

The battle is moving to the FCC in the U.S. where lobby groups are saying that blocking applications such as Skype is in violation of net neutrality regulations. While this argument may take years to resolve in this forum, I would bet that the consumer will decide which approach they favor, long before the courts do, and thus which companies they will continue to support as subscribers.

The Internet is kryptonite to a walled garden. Those incumbent carriers that don’t understand this and continue to try and force a controlled, mobile walled garden experience on their subscribers will ultimately lose.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter is vice president of business development at BelAir Networks, a provider of broadband mesh solutions for Wi-Fi, WiMAX, 4.9 GHz Public Safety and 5.9 GHz ITS networks. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise. Prior to Cohda, he was vice president of business development at MeshNetworks Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola. Martin also was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Teradata. Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and Sun.

Unlicensed Spectrum + Wi-Fi = Opportunity or Threat

(Originally posted at http://www.von.com/blogs/guest/2009/03/unlicensed-spectrum-wi-fi-opportunity-or-threat.aspx )

Having been on the bleeding edge of wireless for the past nine years, it is gratifying to finally see a major market disruption move from the theory to reality.

I have noticed that the industry is largely clustered around two ends of the spectrum (no pun intended). There are the “cellular” guys, who maintain that licensed spectrum, cell towers, and complex cell planning are all required to deliver robust, wireless service to their subscribers. And there are the “enterprise” guys, who have embraced unlicensed spectrum, low-cost APs, and ad-hoc deployments to deliver wireless service to their clients.

But finally, the line is blurring.

It is now impossible to deny that one can deliver superior customer performance at a fraction of the cost using Wi-Fi. There are very interesting upload, download and latency figures based on millions of worldwide SpeedTests. Their conclusion: “Overall, we found that Worldwide 3G average download speeds to be 956 Kbit/s versus upload speeds of 153 Kbit/s and a 484 ms latency. This compares to average free Wi-Fi network speeds of 2,502 Kbit/s download, 774 Kbit/s upload, and 205 ms latency clearly demonstrating the superiority of Wi-Fi network performance. See our summary chart for additional details...”

Leaders in the cable industry are now moving rapidly into delivering a quad play for their subscribers. Cablevision, a leading MSO, is rolling out a reported 18,000 outdoor access points across its footprint in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. Why? Verizon, the nation’s largest wireless carrier is moving into Cablevision territory with its own home Internet and content delivery called FiOS. So, unencumbered by the need to purchase expensive spectrum, or the burden that handset subsidies place on carriers, Cablevision has changed the rules of the game. And how are they doing head-to-head? According to a report from market research firm Dell'Oro Group, “Optimum Wi-Fi contributed to “more than 70 percent sequential growth” in Cablevision's net subscriber additions in the fourth quarter of 2008, “a rate higher than any other cable operator in North America.”

And others, like Comcast, have begun rolling out their own trials.

Embracing disruption, just as they did with VoIP only a few short years ago.

In the United States, AT&T is a great example of a traditional wireless carrier that “gets it.” Faced with the challenges brought on by the success of the iPhone and the stresses the mobile Internet were placing on its 3G network, AT&T went out and added wireless data capacity nationally by spending $275 million to acquire Wayport. This gave AT&T an instant data network capacity upgrade at 20,000 locations where people congregate across the country. And are they done? Not if you listen to Greg Williams: “You can think of Wi-Fi as a giant offload point for wireless data traffic. Look at the growth in smartphones and data traffic, and it’s pretty clear that Wi-Fi can be a real plus to AT&T.”

An interesting contrast is Verizon, where the old school cellular perspective has meant clinging to the status quo. Recently, this manifested itself in their signing an exclusive deal with RIM for the Blackberry Storm that shipped without Wi-Fi. The blogosphere lit up over this, as people revolted over not being able to leverage Wi-Fi, even at home or the office.

In the face of competition, leading cable companies see Wi-Fi as an opportunity to deliver a true Quad Play for their subscribers. (In fact, my colleague, Dave Park, will be discussing that topic at a few upcoming events including The Cable Show, NAB and a webcast).

AT&T sees Wi-Fi as an opportunity to add low-cost data capacity at better than 3G data rates.

Verizon sees Wi-Fi as a threat and doesn’t even allow it on a cool, new Blackberry.

Which are the disruptors and which will be the disrupted?

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

Martin Suter is vice president of business development at BelAir Networks, a provider of broadband mesh solutions for Wi-Fi, WiMAX, 4.9 GHz Public Safety and 5.9 GHz ITS networks. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise. Prior to Cohda, he was vice president of business development at MeshNetworks Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola. Martin also was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Teradata. Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and Sun.

 

A Cell for all Reasons

(Originally posted at http://www.von.com/blogs/guest/2009/01/a-cell-for-all-reasons.aspx )

Fortunately, service providers and technology vendors understand the principles previously described. Typically, a network is deployed for coverage in the first instance, by using large (macro) cells. These tend to be mounted on towers with high transmit power and highly sensitive antenna arrays to hear the low powered “whisperers” at the edge of coverage. Of note, however, is that while published 3G data rates (HSDPA) may claim to be in the 1.8mbps to 14.4mbps range, the “real” capacity throughout the cell of a 3G macro-cell base station is around 10mbps, meaning that there’s 10mbps to share across all of the users in the coverage area. Even the much vaunted 4G, with the first release of LTE offering data rates of over 320mbps for downlink and over 170mbps for uplink, has an estimated capacity per macro-cell of ~45mbps. This means that the performance averaged across all users will not (cannot) approach the types of speeds being talked about loosely in the press.

As user density increases, it becomes necessary to add capacity to the system. This is done by sub-dividing macro cells into smaller micro and picocells. Average data rates increase, as more users are able to transmit and receive at higher modulation rates (because they’re closer to the “bullseye”). System capacity increases as a multiple of the [number of cells per cell capacity]. What this means is that it is possible to deliver far greater capacities over a comparable area (greater than 1gbps per square mile!) by shifting to a micro-cell-based network design. But what it also means is that there is a need to have a backhaul strategy that supports both this level of capacity and that which is implementable in the physical location of the micro-cell nodes.

At the complete other end of the spectrum is the emergence of the femtocell. Think of this as a combination of a Linksys style gateway/router with an HSxPA, WiMAX or LTE access radio. The rationale behind this is to extend 5-bar performance indoor, to users in their homes or offices. End users will connect this to their existing cable or DSL connections and be able to use their LTE devices indoor, much as they do with Wi-Fi today. Whether customers feel a need to deploy cellular femtocells when they already have Wi-Fi deployed is an open question and one deserving of consideration.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter is vice president of business development at BelAir Networks, a provider of broadband mesh solutions for Wi-Fi, WiMAX, 4.9 GHz Public Safety and 5.9 GHz ITS networks. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise. Prior to Cohda, he was vice president of business development at MeshNetworks Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola. Martin also was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Teradata. Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and Sun.

 

A System View of Wireless

(Originally posted at http://www.von.com/blogs/guest/2008/12/a-system-view-of-wireless.aspx )

As with most things wireless, end-user performance is impacted by a wide range of factors: power, proximity to base station/access point, number of concurrent users, presence of interferers, backhaul capacity, and so on.

Wireless systems are comprised of a transmitter and a receiver. Other than in broadcast media like FM radio, each device normally performs both the transmit and receive functions. Each transmitter requires energy to send its signal. The strength of a transmission is measured in Watts. The amount of energy available to transmit differs greatly, depending on the device type.

A handheld device is constrained by its size, the capabilities of its battery, and then further by regulatory bodies, such as the FCC in the United States. It is useful to think of these devices as “whisperers” in a wireless network.

Conversely, a cellular base station, access point or FM radio transmitter has very different parameters. They draw power from the grid, so battery life is not a concern. They’re not held to the ear or in close proximity to the body, so concerns about electromagnetic radiation are alleviated. There are regulatory constraints regarding their maximum allowed transmit power, as transmitting energy indiscriminately would result in interference to other transmitters. These would be the “shouters” in a wireless network.

To effectively close a link, receivers on both sides are required to be able to receive this transmitted energy coherently. Many things come into play here, including the effect of RMS delay spread (multipath), Doppler shift (mobility), but for the purposes of this blog, let’s assume these to be neutral. The ability to listen for and receive energy is known as receive sensitivity and is measured in dBm. In this case, lower (a bigger negative number!) is better, as it indicates an ability to receive a weaker signal. For example, an Rx sensitivity of -98dBm is better than an Rx sensitivity of -95dBm by 3dB, or a factor of two. In other words, at a specified data rate, a receiver with a -98dBm sensitivity is able to receive signals that are half as weak as receivers with a -95dBm receive sensitivity.

Most contemporary wireless communication systems have adaptive modulation schemes that are designed to ensure reliable transmission by altering the encoding of the data and backing off on the modulation rate depending on the link quality — which includes, among many other things, the received signal strength. These modulation schemes have some pretty funky names (64QAM, 16QAM, QPSK, BPSK), but what this means is that in order to get the highest possible rates, users have to be pretty much beside the access point.

Unfortunately, this is an area where there is a disconnect between heightened expectations and real-world performance as quoted performance specs are based on theoretical maximums. Despite the fact that an 802.11n access point may have a theoretical maximum rate of 300mbps, the user at the edge of coverage may be operating only at a 1mbps rate. As a result, throughout the coverage area of an access point, or a base station, the overall performance of any wireless system is diminished by the distribution of users operating at their respective rates.

A simple way of looking at this is to take a population of users and assume that they’re evenly distributed across the coverage area of a particular cell, which looks something like a bull’s eye with four concentric circles, each representing a different modulation rate. With thanks to Archimedes, we know that the coverage area of the smallest circle is [π(r)^2]. The area of Circle 2 is then [π(r)^2 - Circle 1 area], and so on. Even if we assume that the increase in radius is equal for each modulation rate, the coverage area within which users would be able theoretically to achieve maximum rates is only 6.25 percent of the total coverage area. In this example, 43.75 percent of the users would be at the lowest rate. What this means is that you would have seven times the number of users operating at the lowest rates as opposed to the highest rates. In reality, this ratio of 1:7 is extremely conservative. Therefore, it is more useful to build models and set end-user expectations that account for average modulation rates throughout the entire cell.

While the real world does not look like the scorched earth model depicted, hopefully this helps to illustrate why average data rates to all the end users throughout the cell of any wireless system typically are a fraction of the peak rates which can be attained only at the center of the cell! Stay tuned, there’s more to come on this topic.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter is vice president of business development at BelAir Networks, a provider of broadband mesh solutions for Wi-Fi, WiMAX, 4.9 GHz Public Safety and 5.9 GHz ITS networks. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise. Prior to Cohda, he was vice president of business development at MeshNetworks Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola. Martin also was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Teradata. Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and Sun.