I like to read a lot of content with different perspectives about the broadband industry to understand what people are thinking and make sure that my own viewpoints can be sharpened up. It is refreshing to read something that challenges my views and makes me want to reconsider what I’m thinking.
However, once in a while I come across something so far off-base and uninformed that it makes me want to throw things at my monitor. This has happened a lot lately when I read Doug Dawson’s blog about “Broadband for All” and he talks about fixed wireless. His latest post about “Fixed Wireless in Cities” pushed my button, and instead of destroying my monitor, I decided to destroy his arguments.
Here goes….
First, Doug states that licensed spectrum can provide better broadband results. This is not the case. Unlicensed spectrum is more accessible and there are a myriad of options available that make it more useful to deliver high capacity and reliable broadband than licensed spectrum. The latest generation of PTMP fixed wireless platforms like Tarana and mmWave fixed wireless are two pieces of fixed wireless tech that refute the licensed spectrum argument. The owners of licensed spectrum don’t want to hear this because it devalues the spectrum that they have spent billions on so they can control it.
Second, line of sight is a consideration for wireless but can be worked around in a citywide environment, especially if the city has full control over key infrastructure elements such as street lights and utility poles. Towers are not necessary when rooftops, street lights and utility poles are available to supplement coverage when needed.
Third, fixed wireless is great for multi-tenant buildings as Google and others have proven. It requires a good connection to the building and use of the internal building infrastructure to distribute to tenants, but the model is proven and works well.
Finally, a good fixed wireless system that is professionally installed doesn’t have to deal with “dead spots” like the mobile and self-install FWA systems used by cell carriers. A professionally done fixed wireless installation has more capacity, higher reliability and a known level of quality than mobile or self-installed systems.
The real bottom line is that there are serious issues with using a fiber-only approach for citywide networks that make them a risky investment. The cost, long time of deployment and long term push toward a monopolistic competitive environment with fiber-only networks puts a heavy burden on taxpayers and forces communities that are currently suffering from accessibility or affordability issues to wait even longer for a solution.
Do better, Doug.
Stories from the Wireless Broadband Frontier
As Matt states, unlicensed spectrum, namely the 5.8 GHz band, can be terrific for Fixed Wireless Access. It’s the lifeblood of WISP connections.
However, operators offering unlicensed connections fail to mention one thing to their customers – there is no remedy from the FCC if a user experiences interference using an unlicensed system. If there’s two or more WISPs using unlicensed radios in the same area, problems can and do arise.
That’s why important fixed wireless links used FCC licensed connections.
Since 1987, I’ve worked in the wireless arena building networks with for carriers, military, NASA, gov agencies, WISPs, and other users. There’s no single right answer when t0 comes to wireless technology. It’s always evolving.
But one thing that hasn’t changed – if you need a wireless link for a critical connection, do yourself a favor and get an FCC licensed connection.
Licensed is always preferable if the spectrum and wireless links are affordable and available. That isn’t always the case. I’m well aware of the issue that arise with multiple users of unlicensed spectrum in the same area, but a lot of the new gear does a great job of working around interference issues, and clever deployment goes a long way toward mitigating the issues with unlicensed spectrum.