But radio will win. The only question is when and what -- in the end, not even that. Wireless is better than wired: it's quicker to deploy, costs less to maintain, has less to go wrong and is far more flexible. Wherever there's a choice between the two technologies, wireless wins. In the early days of telephones they were used to deliver music and news to subscribers, but as soon as broadcast radio came along the economics of one-to-many proved overwhelming. Open air is always cheaper than buried copper.
The lead broadband wireless technology at the moment is WiMax, 802.16's market-friendly name. Promoted at the moment as the key technology for remote, rural and otherwise unwireable locations, it promises up to 70Mbps and up to 70km range. It won't reach this in practice, but the engineering behind it is building on the enormous amount of experience the industry has from 802.11b and other wireless deployments. It'll work well enough.
802.20 is another broadband wireless standard, this time aimed primarily at mobile users. Designed to deliver around 1Mbps to devices on the move at speeds of up to 250kph, the standards committee have been looking particularly closely at the way it works with 802.11. It's a lovely idea, being able to switch from hot spot to high-speed mobile service and back again without noticing, even if nobody can quite explain why it's such a similar idea to 802.16e. That's the mobile bit of WiMax -- it uses a slightly different set of frequencies and has some slightly more restrictive speed limits, but it too is aimed at delivering broadband to the peripatetic.
The mobile phone industry is anxious not to be left out. It invented mobile data, after all, even if it's been ferociously bad at working out how to sell it or upgrade it much past the 9600bps with which GSM was born. Even though the faster data rates of GPRS, Edge and 3G networks have been hindered by indifferent coverage, the next generation is already being prepared. High Speed Downlink Packet Access -- HSPDA -- is Nokia's big idea, and is promoted as being capable of boosting 3G speeds to 10Mbps or even more. It lives alongside existing installations, just as Edge does with GSM, and is just as dependent on the networks getting it right.
All of the above can do the job of getting broadband access out to the dispossessed, and one standard will win -- most probably WiMax, with the others relegated to niche markets and more expensive roles. But it won't end there: as the market develops, costs will fall and installations will simplify. It took a couple of cycles of wireless LAN development for 802.11 to break out of its own expensive niche: as people learned how to make it work and what to use it for, it got cheaper and more desirable. The final kick up the backside was the Internet, which suddenly provided an infinite amount of things that people might actually want to transmit over their wireless network: a desire already built into wireless broadband.
Once we're into the second generation of WiMax, subscribing to the service will be as simple as buying a box, plugging it into your computer and moving an aerial around until a light comes on. You'll sign onto the service by entering your credit card number into the Web page that then appears -- just as you do with hot spots now -- and that'll be that. Deployment costs to the Internet provider? Close to zero. Equipment costs to you? Less than a mobile phone. How can wired broadband compete?
The third generation of wireless broadband will be the final integration of the telephone and data networks. You can already have a voice over IP phone that looks like a mobile phone but uses a combination of the SIP protocol and Wi-Fi to route your calls over the Net whenever it finds a hot spot. Add the mobile broadband stuff, and that phone will not only act as a mobile broadband terminal -- with phone functions hanging vestigially off it like AM radio in a £2000 digital home entertainment system -- but it will act as a local gateway across 802.11 and the forthcoming ultrawideband standards.
At some point -- and it won't be that long coming -- the economics will demand less and less human management of the system and put more and more smarts in the boxes themselves. At this point, it will become moot what standards are best or which to choose: you'll tell your machinery what you want and how much you want to pay, and it will configure itself appropriately. The technology exists: it's just a question of making it pay.
You'll notice that there's not much for the old phone companies to do here, either wired or wireless. Yes, they have worldwide networks of wireless masts -- but WiMax may be able to replicate that a lot more efficiently. And even if it can't do that from the ground, then high-altitude platforms may be able to deploy huge amounts of bandwidth across vast swathes of countryside in the time it takes to launch a balloon.
There's irony in the notion that just as the telcos are getting the hang of broadband they're in most danger of being out-evolved and relegated to the legacy room. But with the speed at which WiMax, its friends and enemies are being developed, and the clarity with which their future is being planned, the lack of compelling alternatives from the old guard promises nothing less.







Talkback
One words - tibbedee-dunk!
When I want someone snooping at my
data then I'll pick wireless. Until that
day, wired is the way to go.
Two word - standards. Have the people
at wireless land ever heard of them? LOL
Smoke me another one, Poindexter!!
I rest de case.
As users really don't care what access technology provides them with a broadband connection it is difficult to see how Wi Max, or any other wireless technology, can dislodge DSL and cable from its dominant position (100m plus subscribers at the end of 2003). By contrast, Alvarion, the broadband wireless leader, had under 1.5m subscribers globally.
How do you win this battle? Undercut the competition is a well-tried tactic, and works up to a point. But consumers need more than that to be persuaded, in large numbers, to swap providers. What is the service differentiator that Wi-Max brings to the market that DSL and cable cannot also offer?
Nice take on WiMAX and 802.20.
Rupert, you obviously have been following developments more closely than most winters on the subject - it's amazing how mis-informed technical editors are on these subjects . . . even worse that it was for the notorious hype following WiFi/802.11b/a/g/n/h/k/i/j/x! Good job ferreting out the political mess.
A few months ago the email transponder for 802.20 has conversation threads to the effect of "Hey, we all know that our motive in getting 802.20 approved as a HIGH SPEED WBB standard is to use it as a Trojan Horse for widespread use. I sent emails and discussed this with a couple people on the committee but mostly got rebuffed when I suggested that they should have rolled the effort into 802.16. This has become as political as I've seen and shows the tremendous clash that is preparing to take place between the 'traditional' cellular companies and their derived wireless technologies and the nascent WBB/WMAN companies and a shift to more open standards represented by 802.16. 802.11 could be seen as a start of this more open market development process or whatever best describes it. The real shift is enabling silicon: WiFi and now WiMAX are possible as mass consumer phenomena because the mass consumer silicon processes have reached the levels of mixed signal module integration and GHz frequencies needed for low costs.
Nice to find a writer with knowledge and brains! Keep up the good work.
What Neanderthal thinking!
Get your head out of the cave of paranoia and venture out into the free world. . .
Wireless BB WiMAX is very secure. WiFi, 802.11, was originally intended to be used as a WLAN - a local area network with limited range. Certainly the security issues were given a lower priority in the design of 802.11b/.11a. 802.16 starts out with a WBA/WMAN pedigree. many of the companies involved with it's development have experience with proprietary WBB systems sold to government, corporations and telcos where high levels of security is a primary requirement. Although high level security was planned for in 802.16 by the time WiFi's mistakes erupted full scale, that and the evolution of on -chip encryption, processors and memory in WBB SOICs probably helped to assure security got adequate attention.
WiFi's 802.11i version dictates a higher level of security and pretty well concludes that a hardware based 'encryption engine' is placed directly on the one or two ICs. The latest, 802.11i enabled 802.11g/a/b chips have this on-chip encryption or are expected to be closely coupled with off chip components. This allows the compute intensive high level encryption algorithms to be executed at full processor speeds and data bandwidths. In many respects, this is MORE SECURE against intrusion than most wired designs. With the typical unsupervised wire link (or fiber optic for that matter) all it takes is connecting or otherwise taping into the line to retrieve unencrypted data. Most encryption that occurs over common Ethernet links is open for anyone with access to the premisses.
The assumption that communications open to the airwaves is necessarily insecure is erroneous.
The 'service differentiator' is so clear that it abuses our intelligence that you should even ask. Wireless is not cobbled to a tether.
To put this into perspective: When 802.11 'WiFi' started out just a few ago it was sold to corporations largely as a cost savings compared to running cable or Ethernet wires for low bandwidth needs. But later surveys found that cost advantages compared to typical wired services, however substantial, came out down the list of what corporations gave as reasons for continued purchases. The number one reason was the added flexibility of use - getting away from the restriction of wires. The second or third reason given was the increase in productivity experienced from having employees connected via WLANs. This has been show to result in about 1.6 hours of increased productivity per employee per day. That is a HUGE differentiator. Accuracy of information gathering and immediacy of retrieval were given as other advantages. In many fields of science, accounting, medical professions, etc. the accuracy of information gathering and responsiveness of retrieval can mean both money and effective business or treatment . .the difference at the extreme between life or death.
No . . .there are no differences between awkward wired connections and unwired connections . .LOL!
Get free . . go WiMAX!
U have convinced me that wirless is the way
to go.
Where can I get me some of dat wireless
gear. I want it NOW!! LOL LOL
Damn these wires...give me....WIYLESS!!!!
U have convinced me that wireless is de way
to go.
Where can I get my hands on some of dat wireless gear?
Damn these wires..it must be...WILESS!!!!
LOL LOL
This post has been removed by a moderator.