Broadband Wireless Internet Access (BWIA) News

FCC Releases TV-band Sharing Proposal

On May 25, 2004 the FCC formally released Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) FCC-04-113 - In the Matter of Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands (ET Docket No. 04-186) and Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band (ET Docket No. 02-380).

Once published in the Federal Register (a few days to a few weeks), there will be 75 days in which to comment, followed by a 30 day period for reply comments.

The URL of the 04-113 (PDF version) is http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-113A1.pdf

As is the case with all such NPRMs, there are good points, and bad points, and that is especially true in this NPRM given the sensitivity of the incumbent television broadcasters (and a host of little-known other entities such as wireless microphone manufacturers), coupled with the potential for license-exempt operation in this spectrum. At a glance, the FCC appears to have represented, or at least mentioned the key salient issues. Small rural Wireless ISPs will likely be dissapointed as the maximum allowable power will be 1W into a 6 dB (maximum) gain antenna.

I will be contributing my formal comments to the NPRM. The way such things work is that "the big guns" will not file their comments until the very last day to avoid "showing their hand" to other commenters, so there will be little apparent activity until then.

Steve Stroh

Copyright (c) 2004 by Steve Stroh. This article originally appeared on Corante / Broadband Wireless Internet Access.

TowerStream Announces Additional NYC Point-of-Presence - The Empire State Building

TowerStream has installed new Broadband Wireless Internet Access systems on the storied Empire State Building in New York City. "Our presence atop the Empire State Building provides even more dense coverage of New York City. We are approaching 100% availability. TowerStream delivers the best quality and most cost-effective high speed Internet access to businesses," said Philip Urso, CEO of TowerStream.

TowerStream is one of the most notable success stories in Broadband Wireless Internet Access, and the leading provider of BWIA services in urban areas that I'm aware of. I first learned of TowerStream several years ago when they offered service only in Providence and Boston; they've since commenced service in Chicago and New York City, and hint at plans to offer service in at least one, and possibly several new markets by the end of 2004.

To connect to customers, TowerStream uses very robust "designed-for-use" Broadband Wireless Internet Access systems that operate in license-exempt spectrum. Such systems can very effectively deal with interference as it occurs in license-exempt spectrum. That capability is in stark contrast to the widespread and at times highly-inappropriate use of modified "Wi-Fi" equipment to provide such services that generally cannot deal with interference in such demanding environments.

Notably, one of the fastest-growing types of customer for TowerStream in New York City is to providing backhaul Internet Access for Wireless (Wi-Fi) HotSpots and Community Wireless projects.

Update - TowerStream Press Release

Steve Stroh

Copyright (c) 2004 by Steve Stroh. This article originally appeared on Corante / Broadband Wireless Internet Access.

WSJ WiMAX Story

Nick Wingfield, a Wall Street Journal Staff Reporter, wrote an article on WiMAX in today's edition of the Wall Street Journal titled "Tomorrow's Wi-Fi". As with all WSJ articles, it's an interesting read. Unfortunately, Wingfield, like so many other general interest journalists, seems to have been misled by the WiMAX hype and assumes a bit too much from the example of Wi-Fi.

Some points from the article, and my counterpoints:
But Wi-Fi equipment has one glaring limitation: It's typically designed to allow wireless access within only about 300 feet of a radio transmitter plugged into a broadband Internet connection, like a cable or digital subscriber line. That does little to bring broadband access to rural areas that don't have cable or DSL services, and areas where those services are patchy.

Wingfield doesn't pick up on the fallacy of this statement from his own article - Prairie iNet (one of the very best examples of successful rural BWIA Service Providers), mentioned in the article, uses "long range Wi-Fi" (miles) that Wingfield hints doesn't exist. Not to mention that Wingfield didn't mention that there are numerous examples of successful urban BWIA Service Providers such as TowerStream.

WiMax antennas will be able to beam high-speed Internet connections to homes and businesses miles away, eliminating the need for every building to be wired to the Internet. And eventually, by beaming signals over entire metropolitan areas and beyond, WiMax will allow true wireless mobility -- the ability to use your laptop, unplugged, to get on the Internet from all over the map, not just at the so-called hot spots where Wi-Fi antennas currently provide such access.

Wingfield's unspoken assumption is that such wireless connectivity to homes and businesses, and "not just at hot spots" is awaiting WiMAX. Not so... it's happening now, especially the "not just at hot spots" in an increasing number of areas that are deploying "HotZones" - see MuniWireless.com for ongoing, specific information on this trend.

In April of last year, Intel, Finnish cellphone maker Nokia Corp., wireless-equipment provider Proxim Corp. of Sunnyvale, Calif., and several others formed a nonprofit group called the WiMax Forum, from which the technology gets its name.

Wingfield fails to note that Nokia recently dropped out of WiMAX.

Wingfield goes on to make some largely invalid comparisons to failed BWIA ventures, noting (correctly) that part of the blame for those failures was high equipment prices and the cost of spectrum... without noting that the equipment wasn't really up to the task of deployment at that time, the pricing of the wireless services were too high, and WiMAX equipment is being targeted at only three of the most popular bands used for BWIA, not the "millimeter-wave" bands used by the carriers cited as failures.

I also take issue, as I do with all such articles, that the article hints broadly that WiMAX will "take off just like Wi-Fi." It won't... and can't. The relatively low volumes (in comparison to Wi-Fi) likely won't drive nearly as rapid a decrease in price. WiMAX won't encounter a "lack of competition", as was the case with Wi-Fi. To achieve such numbers, WiMAX will have to supplant Wi-Fi, which is already well entrenched, inexpensive, highly competitive, and the technology is being enhanced to address some of the technical deficiencies that gave rise to 802.16/WiMAX. In many ways, WiMAX is the "new and elegant" to Wi-Fi's "here, now, cheap, and mostly good enough". It will be a hard fight.

There's more, but I won't nitpick the article to death. This article is no exception to my rule of thumb that if you see the phrase "... which stands for Wireless Fidelity...", the article will likely contain other inaccuracies. ("Wi-Fi" doesn't stand for "Wireless Fidelity" - it's a brand name!!! Yes, I know that the Wi-Fi Alliance will tell you that Wi-Fi stands for "Wireless Fidelity; that's a sop to writers and/or editors who simply can't get the point that, as a brand name, Wi-Fi didn't have a "real meaning.")

Thanks to Wi-Fi Networking News for the lead and the publicly-accessible story link.

Steve Stroh

Copyright (c) 2004 by Steve Stroh (except for WSJ excerpts). This article originally appeared on Corante / Broadband Wireless Internet Access.

Aperto Networks Debuts PacketWave 760 BWIA System

Aperto Networks' PacketWave is a robust, highly-capable, field-proven BWIA system. The new 760 system distills the functionality of PacketWave from a multi-bay system appropriate for a multi-sector base stations to a smaller, less expensive "standalone" system intended for systems as small as a single sector, with no loss of the impressive capabilities of the original PacketWave system.

(For the rest of the breathless prose from the Aperto press release, I'll defer to DailyWireless.org, who scooped me on this story :-)

Update: Aperto Networks Press Release

Steve Stroh

Copyright (c) 2004 by Steve Stroh. This article originally appeared on Corante / Broadband Wireless Internet Access.

BWIA + VOIP - It's Happening In Russia

Commenting on a previous article BWIA + VOIP = New Generation Phone Company, Alistair writes in Ruminations on Russian Tech and Venture Capital Investing:

"That's precisely what my provider in Moscow gives me and its the most reliable broadband I have used anywhere - and it's voice product is cheaper than Vonage's."

VOIP over BWIA is happening, folks. Thanks Alistair!

Steve Stroh

This article previously appeared on Corante / Broadband Wireless Internet Access.

New Broadband Modem/Gateways Include high-power, defaulted-on, defaulted-open Wi-Fi

This information is largely from a private mailing list, and my source prefers not to be identified.

Excerpt from message 1:
One of my staff informs me that wherever he went in San Francisco he had 100 percent signal strength on wlan with all ssids as 2wirexxx -all had very strong signal and all were using WEP or analogous. Anyone heard of a coverage extending nearly without interruption blanketing SF ?

Excerpt from message 2:
Those are cable modems... They are installing units with built-in 802.11b AP's in them (high power to boot). So far they are being left on in all installs regardless of the individual user's knowledge or use of the 802.11b capability. Interestingly the antenna is integrated into the unit and not visible from the outside, so if you were not hip, you would have no idea what was going on.

Excerpt from message 3:
Great. In effect, SBC is sending out DSL routers with transmitters turned on polluting the spectrum, when in fact, some clients are not even using the devices. Just what we need...

Excerpt from message 4:
This is not an unusual practice. Here in Eastern MA, Comcast sends out their linksys router with wireless enabled by default and no WEP key.

I've talked to people who have no idea its even activated.

To make it worse, Comcast's webpage is misleading, as to the untrained eye (most everyday users) it appears that the security is already enabled, especially if you let comcast install it. The fact is that very few of the techs actually enable WEP.

There is a reason that the majority of Eastern MA is a big "free linksys" network.

I've noticed the same problem (to a lesser extent) in NYC (I've been there for business lately), lots of default SSIDs for the various ISPs (Comcast, Road Runner, etc). I can't imagine they are all using wireless, especially in a 500 sq foot Manhattan apartment.

Then again I guess its not so bad, because it makes it pretty easy to get online no matter where ever I go.

[end excerpts]

I don't find this hard to believe at all. Wi-Fi chipsets have fallen in price and risen in functionality to the point where it absolutely makes sense to add Wi-Fi into a residential gateway (see Dana Blankenhorn's recent comments on this subject.) It's completely plausible that the gateway wouldn't include an external antenna to "spook" a customer (you'd be amazed...) and stock only one type of unit. The reported use of "high power" Wi-Fi chipsets can largely compensate for the lack of an external antenna. It's also plausible that 1) the vendor would default the Wi-Fi subsystem to On and security to Off, and 2) the service provider wouldn't be sufficiently up to speed on this (apparently) new type of gateway for their deployment / management / provisioning system to override the vendor defaults and only enable the Wi-Fi subsystem for those customers who request (and pay) for it.

Sharing one's Internet access isn't necessarily the worst of this... it could well be that in the case of the "hidden" Wi-Fi, the household network's Windows drive sharing, etc. is also being shared via Wi-Fi. It's tough to protect against such things when you don't know that you're vulnerable to it.

Steve Stroh

Copyright (c) 2004 by Steve Stroh except for text of excerpted messages. This article originally appeared on Corante / Broadband Wireless Internet Access.

Paul Baran's Seven Kindergarten Rules For Radios

For those really in the know about Broadband Wireless Internet Access, Paul Baran is one of the "wise old men". (I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to Google for Baran's myriad works... have a comfortable chair handy.) I periodically review Baran's prescient Keynote Speech that he gave to the 8th Annual Conference on Next Generation Networks Washington, DC, November 9, 1994 in which he outlined some seminal ideas, including "7 Kindergarten Rules For Radios". Nearly ten years after he gave this speech... we're just now getting around to implementing some of Baran's points. There is much talk about "smart" or "cognisant" radios... here Baran lays out some well thought-out rules for such radios to "observe."

Space doesn't permit reprinting the entire speech, and it's online: Old Colorado City Communications version and Rutgers University version and other places. Below I excerpt only three of Baran's most salient points, but I do highly recommend the reading of the entire keynote to anyone seriously interested in BWIA.

Steve Stroh

Above text is Copyright (c) 2004 by Steve Stroh. This article originally appeared on Corante / Broadband Wireless Internet Access.

Excerpts from:

Keynote Talk Transcript, 8th Annual Conference on Next Generation Networks Washington, DC, November 9, 1994, Visions of the 21st Century Communications: Is the Shortage of Radio Spectrum for Broadband Networks of the Future a Self Made Problem?

Paul Baran, [email protected], Copyright 1994.

Excerpt 1 begins:

A PARADOX

Of course any suggestion that there is no real shortage of UHF spectrum is at variance with the common wisdom. But, tune a spectrum analyzer across the band of UHF frequencies, and you will encounter a few strong signals, while most of the band at any instant is primarily silence, or very weak signals. (My words this morning are focused on the UHF range, that's the frequencies from 300 to 3,000 megahertz -- the most valuable part of the radio spectrum for communications with high data rate local data devices.)

The spectrum analyzer connected to an antenna shows that much of the radio band is empty almost all the time! This spectrum is theoretically available for sending a signal if we were to take measurements and know exactly when and where to send the signal. The frequency shortage is caused in part by thinking in terms of dumb transmitters and dumb receivers. With smart electronics, even occupied frequencies can be used. To the modern communications engineer lack of strong signals anywhere, no matter how distributed, represents theoretically unused capacity. This is capacity that could be utilized with the proper signal processing. With advanced signal processing techniques, any signal below the peak received signal represents potential usable transmission capacity. But, there is a catch. The assumption is that we are dealing with digital signals able to operate with very low signal to noise ratios. That means if a signal is slightly stronger than another that it can theoretically be received without error. (This game doesn't work with old fashioned analog modulation signals, such as high quality analog TV signals where interference even 40 dB below the picture is visible.) [40dB is a power ratio of 10,000. one part of interference to 10,000 parts of signal is visible. Communications systems can be built with 10dB ratio, or 1000 times less vulnerable to visible interference.] You can think in terms of a curve of energy versus frequency. A potentially available bandwidth curve can be visualized by inverting this received energy versus frequency curve and then adding a separation energy band level equal to the requisite signal to noise ratio. This suggests potential spectrum that can be reused by choosing the right form of modulation. This is why you need pristine pure channels for analog transmission like TV, but can get away with a dirtier digital channel. Digital transmission when properly done allows a small signal to noise ratio to be used successfully to retrieve an error free signal. And, never forget, any transmission capacity not used is wasted forever, like water over the dam. Not using such techniques represent lost opportunity.

Excerpt 1 ends.

Excerpt 2 begins:

SMART TRANSMITTERS

A key technology in our new tool bag that should be mentioned is the microcontroller that allows creating cost effective smart transmitters and smart receivers. For example, a smart transmitter can first listen and then automatically choose those frequencies that avoid the other signals in the band. Think of it as just being a matter of being a good neighbor. The smart transmitter reduces its power level to just that needed to produce an error free signal and no greater. You don't require that pristine pure slice of spectrum to have error-free performance. Digital logic in the chip supports error correcting codes to convert a small amount of redundancy in transmission, allowing corrupted signals to be cleaned up to emerge error free.

Excerpt 2 ends.

Excerpt 3 begins:

SOME KINDERGARTEN RULES

To take the fullest advantage of our new technology with its sharing of a common resource requires that our smart transmitters and receivers cooperate. This may sound complicated, but the rules to make maximum effective use of the shared band are simple -- primarily a matter of common decency in sharing resources. The rules are somewhat similar to those you learned in kindergarten, assuming you lived in a tough neighborhood.

Rule #1. Keep away from the big bullies in the playground. (Avoid the strongest signals.)
Rule #2. Share your toys. (Minimize your transmitted power. Use the shortest hop distances feasible. Minimize average power density per Hertz.)
Rule #3. If you have nothing to say, keep quiet.
Rule #4. Don't pick on the big kids. (Don't step on strong signals. You're going to get clobbered.)
Rule #5. If you feel you absolutely must beat up somebody, be sure to pick someone smaller than yourself. (Now this is a less obvious one, as weak signals represent far away transmissions; so your signals will likely be attenuated the same amount in the reverse direction and probably not cause significant interference.)
Rule #6. Don't get too close to your neighbor. Even the weakest signals are very strong when they are shouted in your ear.
Rule #7. Lastly, don't be a cry baby. (If you insist on using obsolete technology that is highly sensitive to interfering signals, don't expect much sympathy when you complain about interfering signals in a shared band.)

That about summarizes that subject other than to note that this isn't the way we presently handle frequency assignments.

Excerpt 3 ends.

Saving Nokia... and Other Good Ideas

I'm a fan of Martyn Geddes' Telepocalypse and recommend it to BWIA readers. It's one of the few links on the right sidebar that isn't specifically related to BWIA. A few of Geddes' most recent postings trigged several thoughts, one of which is how Nokia could quickly regain its former prominence and dominance.

One of Geddes' most troubling thoughts is PC Phone Home, positing a nightmare scenario where telephony services are subjected to the same infections, security holes, takeovers, etc. as computing devices based on Microsoft technology. Gulp! Geddes also points out that if we do migrate to an "all wireless", likely mesh, communications system (as I think likely, simply because it's improving more rapidly and is generally more cost-effective than wireline alternatives), we're going to use even more electrical power from the power grid to power all those transmitters. Lastly, he offeres a few thoughts about Nokia regaining its dominance.

Read on for my take on those issues, including how Nokia can take back its lead and regain its former glory.

One of the benefits of wireless mesh networking is that it is localized. There's no need to "transmit far" when you can route your packets via another node that's near. If you're transmitting to someone near, then your transmitted power can be lower, allowing more intensive frequency reuse. Assume that we do develop a wireless mesh network system that handles Internet and voice, and it becomes the dominant method of connectivity for the average household. One would put up a small outdoor radio/antenna combination on a pole or the side of the house that connects directly to the neighbors, and that each such node is not only an end point to provide services to and from that household, but also a relay (classic mesh).

If such a system was architected right... each user of such a system has gained localized communications; in short, the Internet going offline in the next city due to a tunnel fire taking out all the fiber lines isn't going to affect your ability to call or email your neighbors... or their neighbors... or likely anyone in your immediate area.

Here's an example. A neighbor of mine is close enough to our house that we could throw rocks and hit one his walls to get his attention (hope Bill N. isn't reading this...). But if I want to call that neigbor on the telephone... my call is routed over many miles of copper, digitized at the remote office, and transported as ATM or frame relay packets to a Central Office (CO) even more miles away. (This scenario is even more ludicrous if I call this neighbor using a cellular phone; the transmissions from my phone are not only reaching the nearest cellular tower... they're penetrating right into his house!) Back to wireline phone again, assuming that the analog signals and the ATM packets do make this journey successfully (that's a lot of miles), only then will the call be completed and I can have my conversation with the neighbor instead of having to throw rocks at his house to get his attention.

With a wireless mesh system that carries Internet and VOIP telephony, when I want to talk to the neighbor, the communication is isolated to being entirely local; Bill's node transmits, mine hears it, and the two commence communicating. The packets flying between the two of us aren't intended for the other neighbor's nodes, so they're ignored by the other neighbor's nodes.

To communicate with someone other than my immediate neighbors, the communications will "hop" from relay to relay when that's most effective, or when the maximum hop count or maximum latency is exceeded, the routing switches to finding a "long distance communications" node.

In such a system, if an infection does break out and the system goes down... the worst case is that you "cut the lines" (discontinue communications from centralized, distant nodes) and purge the infection from one node at a time if you have to (and as a member of a corporate IT team... I've had to do so... too many times!) The first services to return to normal will be local nodes, communicating with other local nodes.

To Martin's other point about such mesh nodes using even more electricity... no, that's not necessarily the case either. If you're going to go to the trouble of putting the mesh node "up and in the clear", you may as well install the optional solar panel that's less than 1 foot square and simply plug it into the node. During the day the node is powered directly by the solar panel. At night the node is powered by the included battery or "local power" and/or goes into power conservation mode (slow down data rate, transmit longer, but fewer packets, etc.) Voila... not only have have you not made things worse (drawing even more from the power grid) but you've created a localized, self-powered, self-healing communications system. A minor side effect... since you're not using their services, you won't have to pay "The Phone Company" for communications to your neighbors - only if you want to get routed out to the Internet... at which point the idea of a Neighborhood-area Wireless Internet Serivce Provider changes the telecommunications paradigm rather abruptly.

Now... onto Nokia, Saving Of. I've never bought a Nokia phone; not because I don't like them, it's just that it simply hasn't worked out that way. But I would... in a heartbeat... and I'd pay pretty well for the privilege... and go to some trouble to get one (including a wait list if that were necessary...)

If...

And Only If...

Nokia started making phones that did Voice Over Internet Protocol over Wi-Fi ONLY. I have little use for a "combo" phone that combines "cellular" and Wi-Fi. If they did so, they'd blow away the competition in that market, which (to be charitable isn't much competition for Nokia at all. It's just that those "barely-compeitors" are providing that highly-desired product, and Nokia is not providing such a product.

Right now VOIP over Wi-Fi telephones are in their infancy... the equivalent of a human only a few minutes after being born. Nokia could own this infant segment and defend it handily if it chose to weigh in with such a product now. Think "Disruptive Technology." Think "Tipping Point." I'd rather have a Nokia VOIP over Wi-Fi phone. They understand battery life. They understand user interface. They understand distribution channels. They do accessories very well. But if Nokia doesn't get a VOIP/Wi-Fi (only) phone out quickly, and Uniden does... the explosive growth of VOIP over Wi-Fi will have been ceded to Uniden.

Now... tying it all together... what if all of those wireless mesh nodes provided Wi-Fi "roaming" for the VOIP/Wi-Fi phones throughout the neighborhood as well as within your house. It would be like do-it-yourself Nextel; (optionally encrypted) Family Radio Service (FRS) with repeaters. Such as system may well be all the communications system an small, isolated community would need (provide backhaul from a few satellite nodes). Developing nations could use this model. It's scalable (yes, wireless mesh is really that scalable; check out Timothy J. Shepard's MIT Ph.D. thesis). And... it's relatively robust, not depending on centralized resources merely to communicate effectively to those closest to you.

Steve Stroh

Copyright (c) 2004 by Steve Stroh. This article originally appeared on Corante / Broadband Wireless Internet Access.

Cometa Going Down - My Take

While the official word has emerged, regular readers of Glenn Fleishman's excellent Wi-FI Networking News heard it first, and I defer to Glenn on the particulars of Cometa's impending death.

At the time of Cometa's formation, I stated that the only way to accomplish Cometa's agressive deployment schedule was to deploy Wireless HotZones - not Wireless HotSpots; provide Wireless HotSpot coverage to multiple venues from one wireless system, using (just as an example) Vivato's outdoor Wi-Fi antenna systems. One venue at a time, wired up, installing, etc. simply isn't scalable. Not that it won't work... but that approach is slow, and costly.

Where do we go from here? I remain convinced that Cometa's death signals to the Wireless HotSpot industry - all of the major players - T-Mobile, Boingo, Wayport, that they must develop a roaming system to allow a user to pay once and use anywhere, as well as offer limited-service-is-free access to help grow the market.

Once that is accomplished, Wireless HotSpots will really accelerate.

Of the "free vs paid" debate; it's irrelevant. Both... and neither... will accomplish ubiquity of Wi-Fi access. A hybrid free/paid model is what's really needed and, once implemented, will result in an absolute explosion of Wi-Fi access. I'll be fleshing out this idea in depth for readers of FOCUS On Broadband Wireless Internet Access.

Steve Stroh

Copyright (c) 2004 by Steve Stroh. This article originally appeared on Corante / Broadband Wireless Internet Access.

BWIA + VOIP = New Generation Phone Company

airBand, a Broadband Wireless Internet Access Service Provider will acquire Go-Comm, which provides Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) telelephony services.

airBand is busy upgrading its wireless system to be fully compatible with VOIP and will use Go-Comm's expertise to offer VOIP telephony services over its BWIA network.

As noted in a previous issue of FOCUS On Broadband Wireless Internet Access (currently available only to subscribers), the combination of BWIA + VOIP is a completely new development that is just coming into the view of FCC officials (who have barely come to grips with the idea of Broadband Internet Access being offered wirelessly using license-exempt spectrum). The vast majority of VOIP watchers, even the omnipresent Jeff Pulver of pulver.com / VON Magazine, don't seem to be aware of the this emerging trend.

The importance of the BWIA + VOIP trend is that a key assumption of the movement towards VOIP is that access will be over existing broadband systems such as DSL or cable modem. With BWIA + VOIP, especially a bundled offering such as what airBand will offer and (I project) Clearwire will offer will completely bypass telephony systems - broadband and voice, and cable modem service.

Telephony Magazine Online article on airband / Go-Comm

Steve Stroh

Copyright (c) 2004 by Steve Stroh. This article originally appeared on Corante / Broadband Wireless Internet Access.