Monday, November 7, 2011
Last week’s post discussed the FCC’s decision to end the obsolete Universal Service Fun and replace it with a new fund focused on subsidizing increased rural broadband access. One of the new fund’s requirements is that providers create a network that allows for 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speeds. Despite what some might say, that’s not fast.

Need proof? Consider this: Competitive Companies Inc. (CCI) just announced that it has deployed its 4G+ Mobile Broadband technology with average mobile broadband speeds exceeding 25 Mbps. And that’s a conservative number. Company CEO William Gray said that download speeds could ultimately be more than 100 Mbps, far faster than anything currently on the market.

Here’s how it works: To deliver 4G+ speeds, CCI uses Wytec, Incorporated’s patented Multichannel Radio Frequency Transmission (MRFT) technology. By combining that with cognitive radio and macro-diversity technology,a Group Cooperative Relay, mesh network architecture, and frequency banding, CCI can deliver super-fast broadband.The cost of delivery is also less because CCI manages spectrum use and administers transmission power.

Back to speed. On one hand, the government is pushing old technology that requires certain speeds that many would consider irrelevant. On the other hand, you have companies developing technologies that are faster, cheaper, adaptable, and easier to implement. The bottom line is that there’s a disconnect between what’s necessary and what’s possible. The FCC needs to start thinking more in terms of the latter.

Labels: 4G, Broadband Speed, FCC, Fixed Wireless Broadband

posted by Unknown at 9:20 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, June 21, 2011
If you're a global thinker or a world traveler, you have already taken objection to the title.  Just like our World Series of baseball, the World Champions of the Superbowl, and all our other national titles that we over-inflate as world titles, the same is true for this title.  The world didn't go wired.  America did.  In fact, other parts of the world totally skipped the wired revolution.  So, why then did America go wired?

In parts of the world where the communication boom came post-wireless revolution, nobody even thought to go through the trouble of laying cable or fiber.  Why even waste the time.  Just build transmitters and antennas.  But in the U.S., arguably the more advanced and faster-growing technology markets on the planet, we exist today in a state of dependency on wired local connections.

Local connections -- key point here, we all know that wires support wireless.  But what I'm calling into question is our dependence on wires for local loop.  From the hub to the handheld.  From dbox to d-link router.  Why?

My theory: it started with consumer, not business, demand.  Namely, telephone and television.  In the 60's and 70's, as such luxuries were becoming more necessity than nicety, the efficiencies of airwaves was still quite low.  Digital broadcast was only developed in the last decade and mandated just last year.  Analog signal on the spectrum simply couldn't deliver the hundreds of channels and multiple phone lines that we were all demanding. 

The result: by the 80's copper cable traversed most of the developed areas.  As cellular and other wireless technology matured in the 90's there existed a sense in which the cable was there, why not use it.  Aside from that, 3G and 4G speeds still hadn't arrived yet and wires still severely out-performed wireless. 

So, why this history lesson now? Why think about it today?  Two reasons: (1) wireless is catching up, and (2) wires aren't everywhere that people are anymore. 

Development has out-paced the grid.  Neighborhoods pop up in corn fields every day, and with neighborhoods come stores.  More and more, new development (both commercial and residential) is realizing the costs to keep the grid up with the demand.

Meanwhile, the alternative local loop, wireless signal, is catching up. The wireless "pipe" is getting bigger through optimization of signal (i.e. digital) and the release of more spectrum (a la FCC auctions). 

Will TV antennas once again be a regular scene on the rooftops?  Will T-Com super-giants like Time Warner Cable change with the times and begin delivering on the air once again?  Or, will we (unlike the rest of the world) keep up the illusion that every terminal, house, c-store, and business needs to be tethered with copper strands no matter the cost?

Labels: 3G, 4G, Broadband, Cell Towers, FCC, Time Warner, Wireless

posted by Unknown at 6:20 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

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