Unfinished Business - Ascendance Of Wi-Fi... Or Did Cellular Win? (1 update)

(Update - McIntyre replied -see the comments.)

I'm still wrapping things up here on BWIA / WiMAX News, and one thing left undone was to clean out the comments that I hadn't yet "moderated", which were mostly comment spam messages.

Unfortunately, there was one compelling comment from February 2nd that I meant to approve, then post an article in reply, but didn't, and it fell through the cracks until now.

The comment was on an April 23, 2004 article - Reader Response On The Ascendence of Wi-Fi:

It is now almost four years later after our comments. Which has progressed the most for corporate mobility - WiFi or 3G?

Bob McIntyre
AT&T Senior Consultant - FMC

Man... McIntyre has a long memory. But, fair enough, and another good "closure" for my writing on BWIA / WiMAX.

First, my apologies for my way-too-high latency in posting your comment and replying.

In all fairness to our respective positions... in the four years since that discussion, I don't think that either of us won... or lost. I think it's a draw / tie.

I think my predictions of the ubiquity of Wi-Fi have come to pass. Wi-Fi is all-but-ubiquitous at hotels, airports, coffee shops (Starbucks), enterprise campuses (especially colleges, high-tech companies, etc.). For many, Wi-Fi is the preferred access method of Broadband Internet Access. For many; for example, real estate agents (which I see a lot of at coffee shops in my area) "corporate mobility" is Wi-Fi at a coffee shop. It's easy to find, it's fast, it's reasonably priced ($20/month).

And, I think your predictions of reasonable-priced, better-performance "wireless telephony broadband" (as I prefer to call it) have also come true. Back then, I couldn't have imagined that I could get DSL-performance, at $60/month, pretty ubiquitously in the continental US, so kudos to you for looking ahead to that development.

People who absolutely need Broadband Internet Access to do their jobs, and can't afford to waste time hunting for Wi-Fi (free or otherwise) or putting up with the vagaries of not-exactly-standard Wi-Fi access, speed, reliability, or pricing are now able to opt for wireless telephony broadband - good enough speeds, at reasonable-enough prices... including me. I was sitting in a conference on Saturday, using the "corporate guest" Wi-Fi of a very large Seattle-area company who really ought to be able to make Wi-Fi work incredibly well, and I was trying to blog, and the Wi-Fi connectivity kept losing connectivity to the Internet. So I pulled out my Sprint 1xEV-DO Rev. A modem, and got back online. It was a bit slower than the Wi-Fi had been, but it was a lot more reliable.

And I think that experience is reflective of the ying and yang of Wi-Fi "versus" wireless telephony Broadband Internet Access. I believe that wireless telephony broadband wouldn't be nearly so good, or so reasonably priced, if it had not been for the looming threat and continuous competition of Wi-Fi. And I think that Wi-Fi is under challenge to provide better / cheaper / faster / less hassle Broadband Internet Access in competition from folks (like me) who have the option to say "the heck with all the Wi-Fi hassles, I'll just use cellular".

But I think that the ultimate example of "Either Wi-Fi or wireless telephony" Broadband Internet Access is...

One of your employer's best-received products - Apple iPhone. The dual nature of the Apple iPhone is that it works on wireless telephony broadband... or Wi-Fi. It defaults to the latter (minor "win" for Wi-Fi)... when Wi-Fi is accessible, and maintains constant connectivity via wireless telephony  when Wi-Fi is (often) not accessible (minor "win" for wireless telephony").

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens in the three-way relationship between Apple (next generation "true broadband" iPhone), AT&T ("slow" EDGE, "fast" HSPA for iPhone, and Wi-Fi for Starbucks), and Starbucks (free Wi-Fi for Starbucks cardholders, and likely soon for iPhones, and quite likely fast video downloads via Wi-Fi. At least that's my guess.) That three way relationship between three companies, very strong in their respective businesses, says to me that there's going to be a continuing role to play for both Wi-Fi and wireless telephony in providing Broadband Internet Access.

Bob, if you're in the Seattle area, or next time you are, let's have lunch... or coffee at a nearby Starbucks (which would be on me).

By Steve Stroh

This article is Copyright © 2008 by Steve Stroh except for specifically-marked excerpts. Excerpts and links are expressly permitted (and encouraged).

This article was written and posted via Broadband Wireless Internet Access (BWIA); Clearwire service using a NextNet Wireless / Motorola Expedience Residential Service Unit (RSU).

This article is Copyright © 2008 by Steve Stroh except for specifically-marked excerpts. Excerpts and links are expressly permitted (and encouraged).

This article was written and posted via Broadband Wireless Internet Access (BWIA); Clearwire service using a NextNet Wireless / Motorola Expedience Residential Service Unit (RSU).

Comments

[Bob McIntyre]

What a memory you have!

Looking back four years in the wireless industry is a real test of "vision". (Now that is an over-used word around here - vision!)

I agree with you that it is a tie as we will need both (WiFi and Cellular) to solve the increasing need for coverage and bandwidth of this mobile society, (and this thing call Web 2.0.) In-building coverage will continue to be a challenge for cellular, even with the advances in repeaters and femto cells. WiFi will continue to have the lure of "free" and greater bandwidth potential, depending on the location of-course.

I am in Atlanta so whomever is visiting either location, gets lunch from the host. How is that?

Now on the WiMax front, I have another prediction that I have held to, and that is "Great for tier II cities and rural areas!" And you can quote me on that one as well.

Best,