Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Everything is bigger in Texas, and the city of Houston is no exception. Earlier this week, Houston announced plans to cover most of the city with a 4G wireless broadband signal, or WiMax network, that will reach over 90% of residents and businesses and provide download speeds up to 80 Mbps.  But, there's something interesting about how this decision came about.  It was not, as you might suspect, in an unquenchable passion for high speed internet among consumer and business subscribers.

Economic development boards everywhere have had untold numbers of discussions over the question: what will bring more businesses here.  On the table for the past decade or more has been broadband infrastructure, which could mean anything from copper wire to ISDN.  But recently, talk of using WiFi blankets across a city's commercial districts have become more and more popular, and even tried in several scenarios.

So, what brings Houston to this conclusion?  Simple.  Internal process.  The municipality itself needed the network.  Residents and businesses were an afterthought.  Using the ubiquitous wireless signal, the city will be able to monitor countless gas meters, parking meters, water meters, and even remotely control traffic lights.  Reducing the need to drive around the city to perform routine checks and meter-reads will save the city millions.

So, what about the nearly 300,000 residents who do not have any broadband service to their door?  The announcement mentions that they'll have "free Internet service from excess bandwidth."  Excess bandwidth?  The scraps.  The second thought.  Could it be that the "internet for everyone" mission is accomplished by plain old necessity, not altruism?  It appears that way.

What would happen if more cities and states could derive benefit from wireless broadband?  What if cell towers along highways and interstates served the government's utility more than they currently imagine? How much could your home town save if they could monitor meters from a control room instead of drivers all over the city? 

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", 4G, Broadband, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Free Wifi, wimax

posted by Unknown at 6:09 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The largest telecommunications company in the world is about to get bigger, provided that the U.S. regulators approve the deal.  When AT&T's proposed buy-out of T-Mobile goes through (expected for sometime next year) the new conglomerate will have over 130 million subscribers. 

Why is the U.S. Government closely scrutinizing?
If this deal goes through, the four major wireless providers will be down to three, one of which will be considerably larger.  In an economy built on competition, the government is keenly interested in preserving the competition in the market.  This means ensuring that consumers have enough choices such that no one company can fix their own prices.  With T-Mobile off the table, consumers have one less choice, but more importantly nearly 40 million consumers who once made a choice against AT&T will be doing business with them nonetheless.

The other, less obvious truth about this merger is what it says about the up-and-comers into this "competitive" market.  In order for a market to be competitive, it needs to not only have choices, but also the real propensity for a new competitor to enter and disrupt.  T-Mobile was that competitor.  They were the little guy.  What does it say that this new "disruptive" competitor just got swallowed?  Can a competitor enter the market or has it become dominated by some giants who control the resources?


What does this mean for end-users?
Despite the government's concern, the likelihood that any negative fall-out will occur in the market is slim in my opinion.  Three major providers still provides a competitive marketplace.  But end-users ought not to be worried primarily with the problems that could arise... what about the benefits?

The obvious benefit, of course, is broader coverage.  AT&T's coverage was significantly more ubiquitous than that of T-Mobile, so this benefit will impact incoming T-Mobile customers more so than existing AT&T customers.  Nonetheless, more towers, more areas, more people reached.

T-Mobile has also been working off-and-on to build out their LTE-network for the past several years.  At the same time, AT&T has also placed a great deal of focus on 4G solutions, knowing that their standard speeds do fall short of networks like competitor Verizon.  T-Moble and AT&T's next generation networks operate on the same or similar spectrum, according to AT&T.  AT&T's hope is that shortly after the merger (and, if they're smart, a little before) AT&T customers will enjoy faster and faster data rates.

Bottom Line:
If you're an AT&T customer, this is good news.  If you're a T-Mobile customer, this is even better news.  If you're a Verizon customer, you should be ambivalent.  Lastly, if you're an Accel-Networks customer, you already enjoy the best of all 4 providers.  No worries.

Labels: ATT, T-Mobile, Verizon

posted by Unknown at 10:26 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, March 15, 2011
AT&T has recently joined the ranks of ISP's toying with the idea of imposing download limits on its broadband users.  According to CNN, AT&T is putting its broadband users on monthly allowance.  Both it's fiber-supported UVerse subscribers and its traditional DSL subscribers will soon be capped to 150 GB of monthly download.  This follows shortly after AT&T announced a similar cap on wireless broadband subscribers with the popular iPhone last year. 

Critics of this sort of a move accuse ISP's of neglecting their supposed obligation to beef up infrastructure. Opting instead, they say, to pocket profits and limit subscribers.  But, AT&T claims this imposed limit will only affect 2% of their current users based on current usage.  This certainly dispels the idea that users will suffer from the decision, but begs the question: why impose a limit at all if it only will affect 2% of users?

Fair question.  Here is the answer: because 2% of users can easily dominate 20 - 40% of overall usage.  It's no lie.  The question we really need to ask, before villianizing ISP's for making this sort of move, is to what end does broadband exist?  Is it to provide a continuity of data flow sustaining business and life around the country?  Or is it to provide a select few tech-savvy and data-hungry users with limitless access to more data than one human should healthily consume.

To make the point, let's consider another public utility in similar fashion.  Why does electricity get provided to nearly every home in the U.S?  Is it to provide a continuity of energy sustaining business and life?  Or, is the average subscriber to common electric utility entitled to the energy he or she requires to run an entire factory or hospital?  No.  Factories and hospitals have their own on-premise sub-stations.  They pay special access fees and work out special arrangements with utilities to meet their unusually high needs.  They know that the power lines that run down their street are not designed to sustain their multi-million-square-feet operation.

Before we yelp too loudly about the moves that ISP's are taking, I would like to ask a few simple questions: who are these 2% using in excess of 150 GB per month on a residential subscription?  And, more importantly, why is consumption without limits the right of every subscriber?

Labels: ATT, Broadband, Utility, Wireless

posted by Unknown at 7:13 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Thursday, March 10, 2011
In the U.K. (where data is king and data analysis is parliament) some chap decided to do a study of the connection speed lost when connecting over WiFi vs plugging one's laptop directly to the router.  But, although this article doesn't name its research source, the study entailed over 14,000 homes.  And, not only in the U.K., but that 14,000 included homes throughout Europe and in the U.S.

What they found, however, should not shock anybody. The average home internet user sacrifices 30% of their speed for the freedom of wireless connectivity. 

As a fixed wireless broadband provider, WiFi isn't exactly synonymous with our industry, but the implications could overlap.  So, we have a few thoughts to share.

1. First of all, duh.  One of the interesting perspectives not explored in the study is that people can connect to the internet at speeds of 35 Mbps (50 Mbps, less 30% = 35 Mbps) while they sit on their patio watching the sun set.  It could be said that they sacrifice ONLY 30% speed.  
2. Second of all, the test was conducted in homes.  This brings up an important point.  Most consumers use bottom-dollar antennae technology available to the public.  The quality of signal and wireless router affect speeds.  Secondly, these wireless routers are likely (due to the consumer's lack of sophistication in all things techie) using default channels.  Assuming that all your neighbors do the same, speed can suffer.  Accel uses proprietary and heavily dialed-in antennae technology.  The way we get our signal is the most important thing. 
3. It is doubtful that an engineer provisioned the antennae and tested speeds throughout the home.  In fact, at our house, the router sits under the couch.  We not only sacrifice speed for convenience, we sacrifice it for aesthetics, too.  When the router is hidden like this, speed will suffer.  In business, however, routers are business-critical and antennas can be placed and tested by a provisioning process.  

All in all, the report seems to be much of what you get from most such studies: stuff we already knew and expected.  If anything, it is a testament to the quality of wireless routers available to the consumer market today.  With expert installation and higher quality equipment, businesses can expect even higher performance, making us all the more confident that wireless remains the way of the future.

Labels: Broadband Speed, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Wifi

posted by Unknown at 7:18 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments