Andy Abramson, a contributor to MuniWireless, says:

This idea is a long time coming and it clearly pits the MSOs against the wireless operators. It also means that the idea of WiFi offload is going to get very interesting. For example, if you subscribe to a video or music service that comes over your mobile phone, and now you’re on a cable operator’s WiFi network, will they let it pass if they offer the same content? Who gets the commercial insertions? We’re talking big time rights issues and money.

For example, if you subscribe to MLB.com’s ATBat on your iPAD to watch games that could be seen on your MLB plan from your cable company, who gets paid? Part of the revenue from MLB’s subscription plan with cable goes to the MSO, but if you purchased it directly using your iTunes account, only Apple and MLB.com see the revenue.

We’re going to see what pal Martin Geddes calls “sending party pays” rise up and start to take hold. Don’t think for a minute the cable operators are going to let your baseball games, or your calls that should be on you mobile operators spectrum contrained networks ride for free forever. To me, this is a classic razor blade strategy where the MSO’s will give their customers all the “free” access they want, but control the pipe in the middle and make money from both sides of the deal, the supplier and the consumer.

© 2012 MuniWireless: WiFi, LTE, 4G. All Rights Reserved.

Read: Netherlands passes net neutrality laws

© 2012 MuniWireless: WiFi, LTE, 4G. All Rights Reserved.

NOTE: This is quite obvious to me especially now that US cellular operators have done away with “unlimited” data plans.

© 2012 MuniWireless: WiFi, LTE, 4G. All Rights Reserved.

Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes said:

“By putting price caps on data we have created a roaming market for the smart phone generation. More than that, we have ended the rip-offs familiar to anyone who has used a mobile phone while travelling abroad. I am pleased that year after year the European Union is putting money back in the pockets of citizens. From 2014 we are also delivering a permanent solution to the roaming issue, something better than any price cap. We are bringing full competition to this market by making it easy to choose a separate roaming provider. If you can find a better offer compared to your standard contract you’ll be able to do it in a few simple swipes, just like when you choose a Wi-Fi network.”

In recent years residents of EU member states have benefitted from the Commission’s regulations which are designed to fight against “bill shocks”, and create more competition in the market for cellular service.

Data downloads get much cheaper

Since 2007 the EU has imposed price caps on calling and texting. Now the EU is bringing data under the same system. The new prices caps, which will enter into force on 1 July 2012, are:

• 29 cents per minute to make a call, plus VAT
• 8 cents per minute to receive a call, plus VAT
• 9 cents to send a text message, plus VAT
• 70 cents per Megabyte to download data or browse the Internet whilst travelling abroad (charged per Kilobyte used), plus VAT.

Downloading data previously cost more than € 4 per Megabyte from many operators in July 2009 – now those prices will be cut by around six times. By 2014, as prices are cut further, the maximum cost of downloading data will be just 20 cents per Megabyte, plus VAT, a saving of 90% on many current rates. Operators are free to offer cheaper rates. Price caps are a maximum level, acting as a safeguard, and competition should drive them lower.

Bill shock: better information when travelling outside the EU

To help avoid “bill shock” from 1st July 2012, people travelling outside the EU will get a warning text message, email or pop-up window when they are nearing €50 of data downloads, or their pre-agreed level. They will then have to confirm they are happy to go over this level in order to continue their data roaming. This extends the alert system currently in place within the EU.

From 2014: competition will deliver cheaper roaming

From 1 July 2014, mobile phone users will have the option of shopping around for a separate mobile roaming provider – either through a contract or by choosing a provider at their destination, all with the same number. Mobile network operators in visited countries will have an incentive to offer such services at rates close to national prices, on the basis of their own low national network costs. As people’s mobile data use intensifies and they use their devices anywhere, any time, many travelers are likely to find this option very attractive. Price caps will stay in place until 30 June 2017 as an extra safety net for consumers.

© 2012 MuniWireless: WiFi, LTE, 4G. All Rights Reserved.

OpenNet claims it has been working to increase its activation capacity to reduce waiting time. From the originally contracted 2,050 activation slots per week, the capacity was raised to 2,400 slots in August 2011. Additional capacity was also added to meet surges in demand that occurred quarterly especially during the IT shows.

OpenNet has been working with the Info-communications Development Authority (IDA) of Singapore to further increase capacity. OpenNet discussed with IDA on a draft plan on 7 February 2012 to raise the activation capacity beyond 2,400 slots per week to meet industry demand. In addition, the extra slots to meet demand surges would continue to be provided. The proposal took into account both the demand run-rate for the different type of installations required and deploying a capacity level that is optimal and cost-effective. A review mechanism was included to allow for a more regular review and adjustment of capacity to market demands.

Discussions arose between the IDA and OpenNet over the need to establish dedicated capacities for the different types of work OpenNet and its Key Sub-contractor (KSC), Singapore Telecommunications Company (SingTel), believe are necessary to efficiently manage activation of fiber services. Subsequent to these discussions, a formal proposal was made on 2 March 2012 and the IDA released the OpenNet’s revised Interconnection Offer (ICO) drafting for public comments on 18 April 2012.

On the non-residential front, OpenNet has been actively engaging the building management of non-residential buildings to explain the benefits of the Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network (Next Gen NBN) and securing access for OpenNet’s fiber. The existing arrangement also allows service providers  to undertake in-building wiring independent of OpenNet. So far, service providers have taken up a very limited number of such services. OpenNet is currently studying how it can encourage greater take-up in this segment.

Disputes between OpenNet and SingTel caused delays

There has been talk that OpenNet can or should simply engage more contractors to complete the fiber activation and installation work. As with any commercial relationship, the details of OpenNet’s contracts are confidential. However OpenNet states that in order for OpenNet to complete the rollout in 3.5 years, OpenNet must rely on SingTel as its KSC for the construction of the fiber network and activating the fiber. OpenNet is pursuing all avenues in its work with its KSC to ensure they can jointly meet their rollout obligations and market demands. Unfortunately, some aspects of OpenNet’s performance are affected by disputes with its KSC. OpenNet has initiated a dispute resolution process to seek resolution to the disputes. Furthermore, there has been speculation that OpenNet has initiated a Judicial Review (JR) on the installation quota and ICO review. While OpenNet is not able to comment on the case as it is currently before the court, they want to clarify that judicial review is not about activation capacity, installation quota or the ICO review.

Growing Demand for Fiber in Singapore

While residential and non-residential services have only been available on the Next Gen NBN since September 2010, there are over 133,000 active subscribers to date. In the month of March 2012 alone, OpenNet added over 14,000 subscribers to the Next Gen NBN.

© 2012 MuniWireless: WiFi, LTE, 4G. All Rights Reserved.

By the way, FreePress has an interactive tool at www.freepress.net/astroturf that allows you to track astroturf (fake grassroots) organizations and the massive amounts of money that phone and cable companies spend on lobbyists and campaign contributions. It puts a spotlight on the sleazy activities of groups like FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, NetCompetition and the Heartland Institute.

© 2012 MuniWireless: WiFi, LTE, 4G. All Rights Reserved.

However, today attempts to improve upon the model range from a friend who wants to cover his neighborhood to companies that are looking at going public down the road.  As Open-Range, Key-On, and several other recent failures have demonstrated, that type of model is more difficult to design and deploy successfully (read profitably) in today’s competitive environment in the United States.  As the United States is only 20% of the worldwide wireless ISP (WISP) market, I’m not going to presume that my analysis applies everywhere.  In two other countries I’m dealing with, both models are valid and I’m looking at hybrid models in each of them.

As recently as 3 years ago, I saw areas with hundreds or thousands of users that still couldn’t get any high-speed wired or cellular-based broadband.  I’m not counting the first generation satellite systems since they could get everywhere, but were very limited in capacity.  The typical areas that still don’t have coverage are not the small pockets of dense housing areas but simply areas that are remote, where houses are few and far between.

However, throw in politicians who still haven’t figured out that stealing money from taxpayers and giving it to their big donors is reprehensible.  Even worse, they couch it in terms of “helping the poor. “ If you are going to use taxpayer money, $300,000,000 of it for example and give it to the 5 biggest cellular/ISPs in the country to help them wipe out small, innovative competitors in the free market system, at least be honest with the public.  I’d have more respect for a politician who simply says that he has to repay his biggest contributors who lined his pockets during election time than to use the poor as an excuse.  With our brilliant politicians and bureaucrats, what’s remote today might become a subsidized competitive environment tomorrow.  For example, we started launching in one area on the exact same day that Comcast and Qwest publicly announced they were coming into the area which has made for a great test environment.  There are still many areas that have limited coverage but they are getting harder to discover.  We need to find ways to be profitable in small areas and suburban America to be successful in the future.

The problem with these smaller areas is that in a tower-based model, it is financially more difficult to recoup a high capital expenditure (capex) because of the low density of the population. To become profitable, the old model of high-capex tower deployments with long -erm clients has to be reassessed.  Since I’ve never been one to be politically correct, I’m going to compare the models of the two biggest vendors, Cambium and Ubiquiti to discuss some of my design criteria in this area.  You be the judge as to which one works better for you as a WISP.  For full disclosure, I don’t operate a Canopy-Based WISP nor do I have stock in Ubiquiti.   I’m a Cambium, Motorola, and Ubiquiti value-added reseller (VAR) and have deployed equipment from all these vendors.  I’ve also engineered Cambium/Motorola deployments in the Public Safety market.  I deploy what makes sense from a financial/quality/performance standpoint and wouldn’t hesitate to deploy equipment from a different manufacturer if it the numbers work.  Unfortunately, few investors today are interested in a 2-year profit point and 42+ month ROI.  The pressure is very high to turn things around quickly when you are playing with other people’s money (OPM).

Motorola’s Canopy/Cambium: Solid engineering, difficult and expensive to deploy but suitable for certain conditions

While Motorola was selling off its cellular division with all its patents to Google, it also sold off the point-to-point (PTP) and point-to-multipoint (PTMP) products to an investment group, Vector Capital. This line of business (PTP and PTMP products) became a separate company called Cambium.  The fact that Motorola diversified their company to this extent is more of a demonstration of tired, old engineering management at Motorola that lost its innovative spark and foresight starting 20 years ago than any great business move.  Any innovation within the companies seemed to be squashed from management who lost sight of the customers and markets.  They were too busy congratulating themselves and thinking nobody could compete with them.  It eventually became about the quarterly numbers and bonus checks, not about leading the industry.  New technologies had to be brought in from outside and then they typically died with little further development or innovation.  Ubiquiti provided a very rude wake-up call in that area.

Although Orthogon and Mesh Networks are good examples of companies acquired by Motorola to complete a product line, I think the best example of lack of development and foresight is Canopy.  A brilliant product and product line designed completely in-house by engineers with a passion.  It was the best of Motorola engineering when that mattered 11 years ago.  The problem was that it was never done with the company’s blessing and had to be driven from engineers on their own time.  The Canopy product line became the most reliable and solid product on the planet for WISPs.  Then it languished for development money for the next several years while committees, accountants, and management ran it into the ground.  Instead of advancing the product line, they created newer, incompatible products.  Canopy is still the most reliable with “mean time between failures” (MTBF) ratings measured in decades, not years.  Unfortunately, you can’t design a product 10 years ago in a high-tech society and expect that product to stay at the top.  Although solid beats flash-in-the-pan, over the long term, NetFlix, YouTube, VDSL, and DOCSIS, and FTTH meant the Canopy 100 series is going to be heading into retirement  in many countries.

Keep in mind that end-user bandwidth is not as important in other areas of the world.  For example, in countries such as Afghanistan and Nigeria, bandwidth could cost $400-$1000 for a 1Mbps circuit.  In those markets, and especially the poorer areas, 256Kbps is a pretty good rate and a Canopy 100 can still be successful if the equipment costs can be kept down.  However, capex is still a problem since the companies attempting to launch systems can’t charge $10 per month for service and spend $15K-$60K in equipment on a tower and $300+ for an installed CPE.  This works if the government is funding the infrastructure but it makes life difficult for entrepreneurs to get started.  However, if you are the government and you want a rock-solid tower-centric system with a company that can hold your hand from start to finish, you should consider Canopy.  The equipment covers every band from 900MHz to 5.8GHz and will last longer than a Twinkie (a Hostess snack designed to be edible for at least 50 years in my opinion and second only to the Hostess HoHo in awesomeness).

Of course Cambium has several other Canopy PTMP products such as the 320, the 430, and the delayed 450 product line.  However, except for the 450 which is being rumored to cover other bands other than 5.8GHz in the future, they are all focused to a specific band.  They don’t cover all the unlicensed bands like the Canopy 100 product line.  Although the 450 may bring back that diversity someday, it’s still months away for the first band and many months past that for the rest.  As each of the new product lines were built, they had one thing in common: they were designed by engineers for engineers and did not benefit from new user human engineering and friendliness.  Even worse, there was no common design between them, no compatibility, no upgrade options, and training started from ground zero.  That meant that the cost of getting into the market had to include several days of training or some really good experienced friends or consultants.  Nobody buys a Canopy 320 to play with before they decide to get into the industry.

Ubiquiti: off-the-shelf wireless network to go, the WISP’s best friend

On the other side of the equation is Ubiquiti.  Take off-the-shelf chipsets, mix with an open-source operating system, and customize it, package it like a Ferrari, price it like a Yugo, upgrade it every couple of years with new hardware but keep it compatible and with similar firmware GUIs and settings, and make it user friendly enough so that every Windows user on the planet can set up a WISP.  MTBF isn’t anywhere near as important if the client radio is a 3-5 year throwaway.  Where Cambium supplied factory support trained technicians, Ubiquiti supplied a user bulletin board.  Where Cambium has channel and dealer representatives, licensing contracts, and distributor incentive programs, Ubiquiti had Ben Moore and an inventory search option on their website.  Instead of R&D teams, market analysis reports, manufacturing costing, middle management reports, quality control processes, Ubiquiti replaced them with Robert Pera doing all the hiring, and the middle and top level management decisions.  They also used standard chipsets, outsourced engineering, customer technical support, product licensing tracking, overseas software development, and pretty much the user base as your quality control division, products are simply cheaper to make.  Ubiquiti also doesn’t have business development managers, human resource personnel, and many other layers of management like Motorola did.  Since the IPO, Ubiquiti has added several Level 1 support staff and channel sales personnel but product availability still seems to be an issue.  Simultaneously, Cambium seems to be putting the message out that they no longer have those constraints and that we should expect to see a faster, more customer responsive company.

Of course, you can announce that you have achieved Faster-Than-Light Speed by rubbing magic gel all over your body but unless you can produce a product and actually deliver it when your customers need it, it’s irrelevant.  GPS, AirBeam, and cable that doesn’t fall apart in the sun after 3 months means that rushing to market and bypassing some engineering Quality Control process is not always a good thing.   Many WISPs who deployed early equipment found out that saving a few bucks up front gets a whole lot more expensive when they had to go back and replace hundreds of cable runs at residential houses, rent $1200 per day lifts to replace radios that lasted a whopping 60 days on a tower, or had to drive out hundreds of miles to apologize and explain to customers who woke up off-line because firmware version 5.x.x wasn’t tested for all the bugs before 16 beta releases.  To add insult to injury, many WISPs committed to deployments and a schedule when all of a sudden, products were impossible to buy through the channels and installations got delayed.  When you are the underdog, you can get away with that but when you become a market leader, continuous product failures and vaporware promises put you in the same position in which  previous market leaders were and make you highly vulnerable.  The best specifications are also useless if the product requires a lot of expensive handholding to keep operations running, and if it can’t scale into large area deployments, and can’t be sold because product simply isn’t available.

So with all these issues, why has Ubiquiti become so successful so quickly?  Simply put, Ubiquiti made it financially possible for thousands of new WISP operators worldwide to come into the industry.  I’ve seen WISPs now start with less than $10K.  Ubiquiti makes it easy to set up small area WISPs cheaply and quickly. The broad spectrum of product line now matches the Canopy 100 and the user friendly web interfaces cut the learning curve way down.  New users can buy a couple of Nanostations for $100, teach themselves how to make them work in minutes, and set up a 20 user WISP in the blink of an eye.  The recent growth spurt of WISPA is directly related to Ubiquiti and is helping the industry gain more lobbying clout.  If you run into a few bumps along the way due to product quality control, compared to not being able to get into the industry at all, it’s the gamble you take.  I’ve seen significant improvements in many areas but there is still a long way to go in many areas.

I also don’t’ see any other good options at that price point (boy, am I going to get hammered on this one and yes I’m aware of Arc Wireless, MikroTik, and a bunch of other vendors) that directly compete with Ubiquiti at the low end.  None of them has the breadth of product line at this point so if you want one throat to choke, then you understand.   When switches and routers start shipping, the throat is going to get a lot bigger.  Along with some really clever mechanical and antenna engineering, Ubiquiti firmware allows every radio to either be an AP, CPE, or both.  For $300, you have a 100Mbps+ (aggregate) dual-polarity 360 degree access point that can easily cover 4-16 square miles.  That’s simply a no-brainer for low-density areas.  In addition, the future promise of functional GPS and current semi-functional polling still makes it better than standard 802.11 devices with neither option on the drawing board.  The management tools are also extremely functional and free in case that got missed.

Differences between Canopy and Ubiquiti

However, everything is a tradeoff and the decision to deploy either product really needs to be thought through very carefully by WISPs.  At present, I see 2 distinct differences in the product lines of the manufacturers.  All of the Canopy products, the 100, 320, 430, and 450 series are completely designed as tower-based systems.  With a single exception in the 100 series, these are straight-up Access Point, CPE products.  They are engineered to operate at very long ranges consistently and dependently.  Since towers are built for large coverage areas, features such as Polling, GPS timing, and Frequency Reuse maximize efficiency within these product lines.  GPS synchronization also minimizes interference between towers and with cooperation, even between competitors.  Polling means that as the APs handle more clients evenly, CPEs are still given each time access and don’t lose efficiency to the hidden node interference problem that plagues 802.11 a/b/g/n systems without it.  If you have problems with your setup, Cambium is also there with the technical resources to make that work.  There is something to be said for solid engineering and the resulting lifetime performance.

Ubiquiti had the advantage of industry wide standardized communication protocols behind their products.  That means state-of-the-art 802.11N 2×2 MIMO protocols with real-world throughput capability of up to 300Mbps.  However, the protocol was never designed to be installed on a tower with hundreds or thousands of simultaneous users and at long ranges.  It was designed to connect your laptop to AP in the next room.  GPS synchronization, polling, automotive power adjustment, and many other outdoor based ideas were never considered when committee after committee ratified the specification.  Ubiquiti took the specification and extended it into a new region, the outdoor arena, first with 802.11 a/b/g radios and then into 802.11N.  However, when 802.11N 2×2 MIMO came out, the game changed.  Where a Canopy 100 AP can handle up to 14Mbps aggregate, a Ubiquiti M series radio can handle up to 80 Mbps.  Keep in mind I’m comparing product lines that cover 900MHz to 5.8GHz, not individual products like the 320 or 430.  The Canopy 100 series is a lot closer in price point.  People were drooling to look at this technology as cracking into competition with wireline services.

Some of the perceived problems with Ubiquiti came about simply because the product line didn’t fit into the model of the tower-centric model that everyone was used to, at least early on.  Early firmware attempts at polling with limited processor speeds, even in the M series, meant that the 80Mbps AP is going to be limited to about 40Mbps with significantly higher latency as the number of users scale up.  GPS features have also turned out to be a big bust with limited success in 5GHz and no success in 900MHz or 2.4GHz.  Without these features functioning, frequency re-use is not even an option on most towers.  Some third-party components that help solve the problem of poor-shielding in the Rockets and antenna leakage such as RF ARMOR makes it possible in the 5GHz band.  These products do help with noise in the antennas anyway, but it’s no substitute for these features in the base product.  Ubiquiti’s response to this is the next generation Titanium product at 2.5 times the price which like the 450, hasn’t shipped yet as of the date of this article.

What Ubiquiti is good at is a low-price product that is the Lego of wireless.   Models can be modified to any environment.  Guerilla Wireless and the Secured Public Integrated Radio Infrastructure Technology (S.P.I.R.I.T.) models both demonstrate different ways to make the sum of the parts perform far greater than the whole.  Ubiquiti can go from Backhaul to PTP to Pseudo Mesh depending on how you put the parts together.  In every case, the cost/performance ratio is 3-10 times better than industry standards.

Even with all these issues, Ubiquiti has been a monumental success that has changed the WISP industry.  In a few years, they have overtaken Canopy sales and have become the darling of almost all the new WISP operators and many of the more established operations.  All doubts about this when, at the WISPA convention in Las Vegas last October 2011, the Cambium breakout rooms had tens of operators and the Ubiquiti breakout rooms had several hundreds more.

The reality though is that Ubiquiti isn’t a plug and play replacement for Cambium.  You can’t take down a Canopy 100, 320, or 430 and throw up a Rocket with a sector antenna in 900MHz or even 2.4GHz on a tower with 600 users.  Ubiquiti wasn’t designed for that yet.  Without GPS, frequency reuse is almost impossible except in certain circumstances.  You also can’t play in the same box as your competitors if they don’t share shovel and the bucket willingly at pre-determined times.  When you can use a water tank or a building as a shield, then you have more options.  In 5.8GHz, the RF Armor shields works pretty well but because you can do it doesn’t mean it’s the best way in all situations. At lower frequencies, it’s not as good but it also adds wind load, a killer on towers.   A lack of a true outdoor type of RF protocol also means interference is more bothersome and it takes more time to manually adjust radios with power settings to keep things stable.

At this point, I design with the idea that Cambium still owns the towers for high-density, long range deployments and Ubiquiti is better served for deployment in smaller area coverage zones with fewer users.  Instead of one tower 5 miles away, use five buildings that are 1 mile away (yes, that doesn’t scale exactly but you get the idea).  Since Nanobridges can easily go 2 miles and still deliver 100Mbps or more aggregate for less than $200 for backhaul, this is a whole lot cheaper.  It’s slightly more work but it’s very inexpensive to trade roof rights for internet bandwidth.  Even if you need a telephone pole and electrical, it’s still cheaper to put one up and pay a monthly electrical bill than lease tower space.   What’s good for the industry right now is that we have never had so many good options and the entrepreneurs are jumping into the business at the fastest rate ever because of it.  In part 2, I’ll cover what the manufacturers are currently up to and how it affects the future.

S.P.I.R.I.T. Follow-up – Since the original design in Evansville, Indiana, S.P.I.R.I.T. has been undergoing a design change to incorporate new technologies.  With these changes, the design can now easily support fibers speed capacities down the street.  Simultaneously, the cost has dropped probably 60% from our original estimates.  These changes will be incorporated into our online configuration tool when it’s completed.

Previous post: Tales from the Towers, Chapter 34 – Raising money for a wireless ISP business

* * * * * * *

About the author

Rory Conaway is president and CEO of Triad Wireless, an engineering and design firm in Phoenix, Arizona. Triad Wireless specializes in unique RF data and network designs for municipalities, public safety and educational campuses. E-mail comments to rconaway at triadwireless.net. Rory writes regularly for MuniWireless.com.

© 2012 MuniWireless: WiFi, LTE, 4G. All Rights Reserved.

WiFi³ technology was developed to deliver huge benefits to smart phone, laptop and tablet users by dramatically improving download and upload performance for voice, video and data intensive applications. Traditional single-channel WiFi is like driving on a single-lane road and getting stuck behind a slow moving vehicle. Even users with the fastest smart phone or tablet can only go as fast as the slowest device on that single-channel. By comparison WiFi³ delivers three channels on the same WiFi radio, so faster devices can be moved to the faster lane, while slower devices can be relegated to a slower lane.

“WiFi³ is the first WiFi technology developed specifically for modern mobile data usage,” says Andrew Skafel, President of Edgewater Wireless. “Realistically, the lifecycle for single-channel WiFi has come to an end yet access point manufacturers are still trying to make single-channel WiFi work. With WiFi³ we’re introducing new technology to the WiFi market that delivers proven, unparalleled performance, unbeatable flexibility and unsurpassed security for service providers, wireless network operators and, most importantly, their customers.”

Research testing conducted in February 2012 by testing and certification researchers from The Tolly Group showed that WiFi³ technology dramatically outperformed three leading carrier class access points. The Tolly Group research report shows a 54X performance improvement with WiFi³ technology over single-channel radio solutions.

WiFi³ technology is already being used by carriers, service providers and systems integrators to address the growing interference and performance problems being created by the explosive growth of WiFi networks and Hotspot deployments. The technology is positioned to have a major impact on WiFi networks and Hotspots as the number of devices using WiFi is expected to triple to over 3 billion globally by 2015.

* * * * * *

About Edgewater Wireless Systems Inc: Edgewater Wireless develops and commercializes leading edge technologies and intellectual property for the communications market. Edgewater Wireless delivers advanced product solutions designed to meet the high-performance, high quality of service (QoS) and high-reliability needs of service providers and their customers. Leveraging over twenty (20) patents, Edgewater Wireless is redefining WiFi infrastructure with its wideband, multi-channel radio and high-capacity Access Point solutions, and delivering next generation WiFi, today. For more information, please visit www.edgewaterwireless.com.

© 2012 MuniWireless: WiFi, LTE, 4G. All Rights Reserved.

European Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes said: “We need to cut the engineering costs of rolling-out broadband networks if we want to spread faster broadband across Europe. We need to test practical ideas on how to cut costs and how to make it easier to access, re-use and share this infrastructure. There is nothing more annoying for citizens than road-digging, and nothing more annoying to businesses than pointless red tape.”

Up to 80% of the total broadband investment cost is related to civil infrastructure works. The cost is so high because of a lack of coordination of civil engineering projects, insufficient re-use of existing infrastructure and lack of cooperation between the various actors. For example, water, energy, and railway companies often have their own infrastructure, and dig up roads without coordinating with telecoms companies. Faster roll-out is then further impeded by lengthy, non-transparent and cumbersome procedures for clearing rights of way and obtaining all necessary permits at national or local level.

The Commission seeks views on:

• obstacles to invest in broadband infrastructure,
• ways of improving the use of current infrastructure,
• coordination of civil engineering works,
• measures increasing coordination between competent authorities and simplifying permit procedures,
• ‘readiness’ of new buildings for high speed internet infrastructure.

The public consultation runs until 20th July 2012. The results will contribute to reducing the costs of investments and ultimately the final retail price of broadband.

Background

The Digital Agenda of Europe (see IP/10/581, MEMO/10/199 and MEMO/10/200), sets broadband targets of 100% broadband coverage by 2013 for all Europeans and speeds of 30MBps for all with at least 50% of the European households subscribing to Internet connections above 100MBps by 2020.

At the Spring European Council, on 2nd March, Heads of State and Government concluded that efforts should continue at EU level in order to complete the Digital Single Market by 2015, by providing better broadband coverage, including by reducing the cost of high-speed broadband infrastructure. Without this investment, the EU risks losing out on this important potential for growth and jobs.

Useful links:  The consultation document

© 2012 MuniWireless: WiFi, LTE, 4G. All Rights Reserved.

According to the press release, the first phase set out to prove that the use of the white space spectrum does not interfere with or disrupt televisions and other wireless devices. In addition to the smart grid, Neul’s network opens up several possibilities for the Smart City of the future, enabling smarter transport and traffic management, city lighting and other municipal services.

Excerpts from the press release:

“In a world of Smart Phones and mobile broadband it is easy to imagine that wireless connectivity has now been solved,” commented Glenn Collinson, co-founder and Board Member at Neul. “It hasn’t. Mobile broadband is too expensive for ‘things’ in the Smart City. Also mobile broadband means battery powered devices would need changing far too often. And all those sensors would load the cellular networks to such a level that there would be little network capacity left.

“Mobile networks are great for people but terrible for machines. At Neul we are today demonstrating that the smart city can happen now with a new wireless standard called ‘Weightless’ specifically designed for embedding in electricity and gas meters, air quality sensors, recycling points, street lighting, parking spaces, traffic lights and … well … ‘things’ rather than people.”

“In the last few years we’ve heard a great deal about white space and the opportunities it will bring. With many countries approving the necessary legislation, the launch of the world’s first city-wide white space network coupled with the demonstration of a smart meter reading over white space is a major milestone towards the realisation of these opportunities.” commented Will Strauss, Chief Analyst Forward Concepts. “Technologies available today simply cannot realistically deal with the cost, power and propagation requirements of many elements of the Smart City. This sharp movement towards a world of ubiquitous machine-to-machine communication has huge implications and the industry will be watching closely.”

Neul’s network comprises:

• Five base stations around the city of Cambridge.
• One base station in a rural community south of Cambridge.
• A cloud-hosted network Operational & Management Centre (OMC) that efficiently and securely manages the communications between the internet and the ‘Things’.
• Support for multiple geo-location databases that ensure wireless microphones, TV transmission and reception is not disrupted.

© 2012 MuniWireless: WiFi, LTE, 4G. All Rights Reserved.