WCAI kicked off its annual International Symposium @ 4G World today with the announcement of a significant step toward unlocking the potential of the 3.65 GHz band. The announcement came at the day-long 3.65 GHz Summit that WCAI is holding today to examine the remaining technical and regulatory challenges facing the band, look at the business models that proved successful and discuss the ways to maximize return on investment.
After months of tireless work and multiple iterations, the WCAI's 3.65 GHz Working Group today adopted and released the 3.65 GHz Channel Plan to minimize harmful interference among operators in the band. The plan is part of the 3.65 GHz Best Practices that the Working Group has been developing since it launched last November. It is the result of collaboration among leading 3.65 GHz vendors and operators both in the U.S. and abroad.
"We feel that this channel plan is an example of the type of work that can be accomplished through collective efforts and within the WCAI to facilitate future commercial successes in the band," said Jason Lazar of KeyOn Communications, who chairs the WCAI 3.65 GHz Working Group.
Still ahead are three days filled with valuable content and numerous networking opportunities. Those who are interested in learning about key regulatory issues, investment strategies and wireless broadband network deployments in one of the world's fastest-growing markets -- Latin America -- should not miss the L@Net Summit WCAI will host tomorrow, Oct. 19. Also tomorrow, WCAI will honor some of the best minds in the industry with annual awards and host an operator discussion on building a business case for WiMAX and LTE in the TDD spectrum at the WCAI's Annual Networking Dinner. The third and final day of the Symposium will feature the FCC keynote address, followed by the WCAI Broadband and Wireless Policy Summit.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Still Waiting for a Reason to Apply Open Internet Regulations to Mobile Broadband
In its comments on the FCC’s recent Public Notice asking whether open Internet regulations should apply to mobile broadband, WCAI explodes the myth that open Internet regulations are necessary to subsidize mobile device and applications makers.
WCAI demonstrates in its comments that the device and applications segment of the mobile market is a hotbed of innovation, competition, and industry growth:
• There are at least 33 companies manufacturing more than 630 unique devices for the U.S. market.
• There are currently 11 companies producing OS for the mobile devices segment, none of whom is vertically integrated with a mobile broadband service provider.
• Entirely new types of devices are being created, including the Apple iPad and the Kind e-reader.
• The mobile applications market is experiencing annualized growth rates of up to more than 500 percent.
The data presented by WCAI clearly indicates that there is intense innovation and competition in the applications and devices segments and that there is no discernable market failure in these segments.
Open Internet proponents nevertheless believe regulations are necessary to ensure applications entrepreneurs can “innovate” without “first seeking the permission” of a network operator. In the absence of some market failure, however, “seeking permission” is merely a euphemism for paying market-based rates for use of the network. And there is no basis for believing that device and applications developers are unable to fully participate in the mobile market.
The argument that mobile network operators should be subsidizing mobile applications providers is nonsensical given the relative entry costs of these two market segments. The cost of entry into the applications market is so low that an entrepreneur can earn a living as an independent mobile software developer working out of the home. In comparison, Clearwire’s entry into the mobile broadband service provider market has required billions of dollars in capital. Given this huge disparity, it seems clear that, if the Commission were to subsidize mobile broadband investment, it ought to subsidize investment in the network – and not in devices and applications.
WCAI demonstrates in its comments that the device and applications segment of the mobile market is a hotbed of innovation, competition, and industry growth:
• There are at least 33 companies manufacturing more than 630 unique devices for the U.S. market.
• There are currently 11 companies producing OS for the mobile devices segment, none of whom is vertically integrated with a mobile broadband service provider.
• Entirely new types of devices are being created, including the Apple iPad and the Kind e-reader.
• The mobile applications market is experiencing annualized growth rates of up to more than 500 percent.
The data presented by WCAI clearly indicates that there is intense innovation and competition in the applications and devices segments and that there is no discernable market failure in these segments.
Open Internet proponents nevertheless believe regulations are necessary to ensure applications entrepreneurs can “innovate” without “first seeking the permission” of a network operator. In the absence of some market failure, however, “seeking permission” is merely a euphemism for paying market-based rates for use of the network. And there is no basis for believing that device and applications developers are unable to fully participate in the mobile market.
The argument that mobile network operators should be subsidizing mobile applications providers is nonsensical given the relative entry costs of these two market segments. The cost of entry into the applications market is so low that an entrepreneur can earn a living as an independent mobile software developer working out of the home. In comparison, Clearwire’s entry into the mobile broadband service provider market has required billions of dollars in capital. Given this huge disparity, it seems clear that, if the Commission were to subsidize mobile broadband investment, it ought to subsidize investment in the network – and not in devices and applications.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Broadband Stimulus Post-Game Recap
By John M. Celentano, Market Development Manager, TESSCO
Reprinted from Connected Planet
Well, folks, the clock has run out and the Broadband Stimulus Bowl is over. This contest is one for the history books. The Recovery Act set a prize of $7.2 billion for this event with $2.5 billion in the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Broadband Initiative Program (BIP) and $4.7 billion in the NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP). BIP funds are intended for broadband access (last mile) network deployments in poorly served or unserved areas. BTOP grants are intended to support comprehensive community infrastructure (middle mile) inter-city, inter-building, and public safety facilities; public computer centers (community entities-schools, libraries and municipal facilities); and sustainable broadband adoption (broadband education and training programs).
Why wasn’t more money allocated to wireless infrastructure? Wireless systems can extend broadband to subscribers over many miles at much lower deployment costs, around $1,500 per subscriber for the access portion (base station and subscriber units). Moreover, wireless systems are easier and faster to deploy than trenching fiber cable over long distances. It appears to be a matter of numbers or maybe less familiarity among the reviewers with wireless broadband, even with many wireless products on the RUS LOM.
BIP budgeted $10,000 per subscriber for FTTH deployments. Most of these projects are in rural areas with lots of wide-open spaces, so deployment costs will be higher than if FTTH were deployed in denser-populated areas. Still, that figure is probably 2-3 times what can actually be done to extend fiber into rural markets.
Comprehensive community infrastructure (CCI)/middle mile BTOP projects are adding significant dark fiber capacity to the national network. While there is a "build it and they will come" feel to some of these projects, if the demand for broadband services continues, that capacity should be burned off at a steady pace. Still, it behooves players on both the last mile and CCI squads to team up to make end-to-end broadband a winner.
Overall, $9.4 billion was designated for 653 projects with $6.6 billion in grants, $1.3 billion in loans, and another $1.5 billion in matching funds. Infrastructure projects took 434 awards, with $5.8 billion in grants and $1.3 billion in loans.
The first half--Round One--was a free-for-all with seasoned veterans almost overrun by a pack of undisciplined, freewheeling walk-ons and free agents scrambling to score a piece of the action. Those that couldn’t demonstrate viable performance were cut almost immediately.
Second half action in Round Two was much more orderly with applicants showing more disciplined approaches and greater technical and economic feasibility.
Team BIP Highlights: A total of nearly $4.0 billion, well above the original appropriation, was awarded in grants, loans, and matching funds to 310 BIP players that include 294 last mile, 12 middle mile, four Satellite Broadband projects and one Technical Assistance grant.
The vast majority, 79% last-mile projects went to wireline plays, either fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) or digital subscriber line (DSL) over copper. A total of 50% of all BIP projects were for FTTH. Another 19% of the plays went to a mix of wireless or hybrid wireless/fiber projects. Wireless-only projects accounted for just 15% of the BIP awards, up from around 5% in Round One.
Team BTOP Highlights: The term “middle mile” was used until Round Two when CCI came into the game, presumably because it applies to projects that involve more than just intercity backbones. CCI applies to backhaul facilities between towns and cities, and interconnecting major institutional buildings and campuses. Over $4.4 billion was awarded to middle mile/CCI projects alone, including $973 million in matching funds. As expected, the majority (83%) of these projects went for fiber technology that is a proven reliable high-capacity technology for inter-city and long-haul applications. Wireless accounted for 10% of BTOP projects along with another 7% that went for hybrid fiber-wireless combos.
A couple of points to note:
First, the referees (reviewers) faced a monumental task in sorting out projects that had merit from those that did not; they did a commendable job.
Second, most BIP awards went to established companies that have a history of borrowing, and repaying, RUS funds. Scores of BIP applicants were turned down flat because they had no track record or because their proposals were not feasible.
Third, fiber projects far outweighed wireless alternatives. This is, in part, because more wireline companies (independent telcos, ISPs, small cablecos) applied for funds. Fiber systems are the safe bet; the technology is stable and the players are established. Fiber equipment manufacturers are well-known, reliable, and have a good performance record. Plus, most of the FTTH products picked for these projects already are on the RUS List of Materials (LOM).
Reprinted from Connected Planet
Well, folks, the clock has run out and the Broadband Stimulus Bowl is over. This contest is one for the history books. The Recovery Act set a prize of $7.2 billion for this event with $2.5 billion in the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Broadband Initiative Program (BIP) and $4.7 billion in the NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP). BIP funds are intended for broadband access (last mile) network deployments in poorly served or unserved areas. BTOP grants are intended to support comprehensive community infrastructure (middle mile) inter-city, inter-building, and public safety facilities; public computer centers (community entities-schools, libraries and municipal facilities); and sustainable broadband adoption (broadband education and training programs).
Why wasn’t more money allocated to wireless infrastructure? Wireless systems can extend broadband to subscribers over many miles at much lower deployment costs, around $1,500 per subscriber for the access portion (base station and subscriber units). Moreover, wireless systems are easier and faster to deploy than trenching fiber cable over long distances. It appears to be a matter of numbers or maybe less familiarity among the reviewers with wireless broadband, even with many wireless products on the RUS LOM.
BIP budgeted $10,000 per subscriber for FTTH deployments. Most of these projects are in rural areas with lots of wide-open spaces, so deployment costs will be higher than if FTTH were deployed in denser-populated areas. Still, that figure is probably 2-3 times what can actually be done to extend fiber into rural markets.
Comprehensive community infrastructure (CCI)/middle mile BTOP projects are adding significant dark fiber capacity to the national network. While there is a "build it and they will come" feel to some of these projects, if the demand for broadband services continues, that capacity should be burned off at a steady pace. Still, it behooves players on both the last mile and CCI squads to team up to make end-to-end broadband a winner.
Overall, $9.4 billion was designated for 653 projects with $6.6 billion in grants, $1.3 billion in loans, and another $1.5 billion in matching funds. Infrastructure projects took 434 awards, with $5.8 billion in grants and $1.3 billion in loans.
The first half--Round One--was a free-for-all with seasoned veterans almost overrun by a pack of undisciplined, freewheeling walk-ons and free agents scrambling to score a piece of the action. Those that couldn’t demonstrate viable performance were cut almost immediately.
Second half action in Round Two was much more orderly with applicants showing more disciplined approaches and greater technical and economic feasibility.
Team BIP Highlights: A total of nearly $4.0 billion, well above the original appropriation, was awarded in grants, loans, and matching funds to 310 BIP players that include 294 last mile, 12 middle mile, four Satellite Broadband projects and one Technical Assistance grant.
The vast majority, 79% last-mile projects went to wireline plays, either fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) or digital subscriber line (DSL) over copper. A total of 50% of all BIP projects were for FTTH. Another 19% of the plays went to a mix of wireless or hybrid wireless/fiber projects. Wireless-only projects accounted for just 15% of the BIP awards, up from around 5% in Round One.
Team BTOP Highlights: The term “middle mile” was used until Round Two when CCI came into the game, presumably because it applies to projects that involve more than just intercity backbones. CCI applies to backhaul facilities between towns and cities, and interconnecting major institutional buildings and campuses. Over $4.4 billion was awarded to middle mile/CCI projects alone, including $973 million in matching funds. As expected, the majority (83%) of these projects went for fiber technology that is a proven reliable high-capacity technology for inter-city and long-haul applications. Wireless accounted for 10% of BTOP projects along with another 7% that went for hybrid fiber-wireless combos.
A couple of points to note:
First, the referees (reviewers) faced a monumental task in sorting out projects that had merit from those that did not; they did a commendable job.
Second, most BIP awards went to established companies that have a history of borrowing, and repaying, RUS funds. Scores of BIP applicants were turned down flat because they had no track record or because their proposals were not feasible.
Third, fiber projects far outweighed wireless alternatives. This is, in part, because more wireline companies (independent telcos, ISPs, small cablecos) applied for funds. Fiber systems are the safe bet; the technology is stable and the players are established. Fiber equipment manufacturers are well-known, reliable, and have a good performance record. Plus, most of the FTTH products picked for these projects already are on the RUS List of Materials (LOM).
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Moving Forward on White Spaces
By Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel, Google
On November 4, 2008, as millions of Americans lined up to cast their ballots in a historic presidential election, another important vote was taking place at the Federal Communications Commission. After some six years of careful study, that morning the FCC voted unanimously to open the TV “white spaces” spectrum – the unused airwaves between broadcast TV channels – to unlicensed uses by all Americans.
One week from today, the five current FCC Commissioners will meet to set final technical rules for the white spaces. If it gets the rules right, the Commission will have taken a huge step to put better and faster Internet connections in the hands of the public.
Thanks to their unique range and strength, the TV white spaces are sometimes referred to as “Wi-Fi on steroids,” powerful enough to unlock new innovations and applications that simply are not possible over traditional Wi-Fi. Demonstration projects across the country are giving us a small sneak peak of what’s possible with the white spaces – for example, Wilmington, North Carolina, has blanketed its city with wireless Internet access, while Plumas County, California, is running a “smart grid” wireless network. Indeed, one of the great advantages of the white spaces is that ordinary citizens can employ them in a wide variety of ways, without the need to formally apply for (let alone purchase) a spectrum license from the FCC.
In setting the final rules, there are at least two critical issues the FCC needs to address. First, when it comes to interference protection, the Commission should support a geolocation solution. A few opponents of unlicensed white spaces have demanded that the FCC also require a spectrum-sensing solution, a move that would be redundant and expensive, and could severely limit commercial investment. Second, the Commission should establish a reasonable “keep-out” zone for wireless microphones. This will protect the users of authorized wireless microphones, while also allowing white spaces devices to operate in big cities, where spectrum is a coveted resource. Additionally, once the rules are set, the FCC will need to authorize one or more white spaces database administrators.
Google and many others in the tech industry are eager finally to get the green light to start innovating and building new services on these airwaves. From new wireless devices, to better broadband access, to more reliable communications networks for emergency responders, to better-connected classrooms – the white spaces have the potential to spark the next-generation of wireless communications.
On November 4, 2008, as millions of Americans lined up to cast their ballots in a historic presidential election, another important vote was taking place at the Federal Communications Commission. After some six years of careful study, that morning the FCC voted unanimously to open the TV “white spaces” spectrum – the unused airwaves between broadcast TV channels – to unlicensed uses by all Americans.
One week from today, the five current FCC Commissioners will meet to set final technical rules for the white spaces. If it gets the rules right, the Commission will have taken a huge step to put better and faster Internet connections in the hands of the public.
Thanks to their unique range and strength, the TV white spaces are sometimes referred to as “Wi-Fi on steroids,” powerful enough to unlock new innovations and applications that simply are not possible over traditional Wi-Fi. Demonstration projects across the country are giving us a small sneak peak of what’s possible with the white spaces – for example, Wilmington, North Carolina, has blanketed its city with wireless Internet access, while Plumas County, California, is running a “smart grid” wireless network. Indeed, one of the great advantages of the white spaces is that ordinary citizens can employ them in a wide variety of ways, without the need to formally apply for (let alone purchase) a spectrum license from the FCC.
In setting the final rules, there are at least two critical issues the FCC needs to address. First, when it comes to interference protection, the Commission should support a geolocation solution. A few opponents of unlicensed white spaces have demanded that the FCC also require a spectrum-sensing solution, a move that would be redundant and expensive, and could severely limit commercial investment. Second, the Commission should establish a reasonable “keep-out” zone for wireless microphones. This will protect the users of authorized wireless microphones, while also allowing white spaces devices to operate in big cities, where spectrum is a coveted resource. Additionally, once the rules are set, the FCC will need to authorize one or more white spaces database administrators.
Google and many others in the tech industry are eager finally to get the green light to start innovating and building new services on these airwaves. From new wireless devices, to better broadband access, to more reliable communications networks for emergency responders, to better-connected classrooms – the white spaces have the potential to spark the next-generation of wireless communications.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Migration to Mobile 4G Networks
By Monica Paolini, Founder, Senza Fili Consulting
Mobile broadband requires operators to change the way they manage data services. The transition to a 4G IP network will give them the tools to manage traffic actively and achieve three goals:
We just published a white paper sponsored by Cisco on the transition to 4G IP networks.
Mobile broadband is a great success story. After several years of timid growth, mobile broadband adoption has exploded, driven by the concurrent availability of must-have devices like the iPhone and Droid, a myriad of applications that are intuitive to use, and attractive service pricing. The sudden growth in mobile broadband is happening at a time when mobile operators are fighting a slow but inexorable decline in voice revenues and see data revenues as their main hope for maintaining their profitability levels.
Yet for mobile operators mobile broadband is a relatively new service that presents many challenges. Despite its simplicity, the flat-fee model-with or without traffic caps-does not meet subscribers' demand for flexible and personalized data services. Network congestion, poor subscriber experience, and the inability to reach new market segments are among the problems that operators have started to encounter as mobile broadband becomes widely adopted in the consumer market.
On the other hand, operators have unparalleled, but largely under-utilized, access to real-time information about their subscribers and their network. They know where their subscribers are and what they are doing, what their preferences and plan settings are, which devices and application they use. They also have real-time information on traffic levels and traffic flow for each cell site, which allows them to decide whether and how to prioritize traffic. By using this information, operators can expand the potential of mobile broadband services, making them available to a wider range of subscribers and devices, while managing traffic growth, providing a reliable and fair service to subscribers, and protecting their profitability.
In our latest paper, we present a case for a more active management of mobile broadband services that leverages the IP network to pursue three goals:
* More efficient use of network resources. This is required in order to expand network capacity to meet subscribers' demand in a cost effective way, which will enable operators to operate profitably.
* More flexible, fair, and personalized service plans. Mobile operators realize they have to move beyond flat-fee unlimited plans. To improve their subscribers' experience and differentiate their services from the competition, they can add features that allow them to move beyond capped plans.
* Maximize revenues. Flat-fee unlimited plans are not effective at segmenting the market and gaining revenues from added-value services, because for many potential subscribers the available plans are too expensive, or do not offer the features they want. A wider choice in service plans can address the demand from these subscribers, and raise data revenues. Furthermore, mobile broadband can create new revenue streams from advertisers and content and applications providers, and facilitate the development of new business models that make mobile data services more attractive, easier to use, and more effective. Mobile operators can also gain additional revenues from vertical applications, through partnerships with MVNOs, enterprises and public agencies.
Mobile broadband requires operators to change the way they manage data services. The transition to a 4G IP network will give them the tools to manage traffic actively and achieve three goals:
- Increase network efficiency and capacity, lowering transport costs
- Offer service plans that are more flexible, fair, and personalized
- Maximize revenues from subscribers, applications and content providers, and vertical applications
We just published a white paper sponsored by Cisco on the transition to 4G IP networks.
Mobile broadband is a great success story. After several years of timid growth, mobile broadband adoption has exploded, driven by the concurrent availability of must-have devices like the iPhone and Droid, a myriad of applications that are intuitive to use, and attractive service pricing. The sudden growth in mobile broadband is happening at a time when mobile operators are fighting a slow but inexorable decline in voice revenues and see data revenues as their main hope for maintaining their profitability levels.
Yet for mobile operators mobile broadband is a relatively new service that presents many challenges. Despite its simplicity, the flat-fee model-with or without traffic caps-does not meet subscribers' demand for flexible and personalized data services. Network congestion, poor subscriber experience, and the inability to reach new market segments are among the problems that operators have started to encounter as mobile broadband becomes widely adopted in the consumer market.
On the other hand, operators have unparalleled, but largely under-utilized, access to real-time information about their subscribers and their network. They know where their subscribers are and what they are doing, what their preferences and plan settings are, which devices and application they use. They also have real-time information on traffic levels and traffic flow for each cell site, which allows them to decide whether and how to prioritize traffic. By using this information, operators can expand the potential of mobile broadband services, making them available to a wider range of subscribers and devices, while managing traffic growth, providing a reliable and fair service to subscribers, and protecting their profitability.
In our latest paper, we present a case for a more active management of mobile broadband services that leverages the IP network to pursue three goals:
* More efficient use of network resources. This is required in order to expand network capacity to meet subscribers' demand in a cost effective way, which will enable operators to operate profitably.
* More flexible, fair, and personalized service plans. Mobile operators realize they have to move beyond flat-fee unlimited plans. To improve their subscribers' experience and differentiate their services from the competition, they can add features that allow them to move beyond capped plans.
* Maximize revenues. Flat-fee unlimited plans are not effective at segmenting the market and gaining revenues from added-value services, because for many potential subscribers the available plans are too expensive, or do not offer the features they want. A wider choice in service plans can address the demand from these subscribers, and raise data revenues. Furthermore, mobile broadband can create new revenue streams from advertisers and content and applications providers, and facilitate the development of new business models that make mobile data services more attractive, easier to use, and more effective. Mobile operators can also gain additional revenues from vertical applications, through partnerships with MVNOs, enterprises and public agencies.
Monday, September 13, 2010
WCAI to Host a Webinar on Enabling Smart Cities Through a Unified Communication Platform
WCAI will hold a webinar this Wednesday, Sept. 15 at 10 am ET, to examine how cities and municipalities can create significant efficiencies to their day-to-day operations through the use of a unified communication infrastructure. Today cities are looking to better manage multiple local government applications such as traffic management, utilities automation, law and order, etc. They would also like to offer their residents a better lifestyle and access to new opportunities through broadband services.
The webinar – "Enabling Smart Cities Through a Unified Communication Platform" – will highlight a case study from City of Houston, a leading U.S. city that is at the forefront of one such initiative. Broadband wireless pioneer Alvarion will provide an overview of how to cost effectively build state of the art communication infrastructure for cities and municipalities. The webinar is free of charge and open to all. Register Now!
The webinar – "Enabling Smart Cities Through a Unified Communication Platform" – will highlight a case study from City of Houston, a leading U.S. city that is at the forefront of one such initiative. Broadband wireless pioneer Alvarion will provide an overview of how to cost effectively build state of the art communication infrastructure for cities and municipalities. The webinar is free of charge and open to all. Register Now!
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Enabling Smart Cities through a Unified Communication Platform
Ashish Sharma, VP Marketing, Alvarion
There is rapidly growing interest among municipalities and public safety agencies worldwide to invest in multi-purpose, city-wide broadband networks, thereby creating a “Smart City.” The goal for these “Smart City” initiatives is to provide a cost-effective and efficient approach for managing the city’s day to day operations. The technology of choice for the “Smart City” is the 4G WiMAX wireless network, which allows cities and municipalities to invest in a single scalable network infrastructure that can satisfy the diverse requirements of multiple city agencies. For a cost-effective “Smart City” solution, municipalities require a single, multi-purpose network for a wide range of applications and services including public safety and security, mobile broadband connectivity for first responders, intelligent traffic systems, connecting multiple city buildings and agencies and more.
The shift from multiple single-application solutions to a common platform that can be shared by multiple agencies for diverse citywide applications and services is a dominant trend among cities and municipalities. A common multi-purpose network approach based on Point-to-Multipoint (PMP), Mesh, and Point-to-Point (PtP) wireless topologies for optimal coverage leads to lower initial investment, lower operating costs and better overall performance.
WiMAX technology, based on the IEEE 802.16e standard, has the features and attributes necessary to meet the cost, performance and coverage demands required for a wide area cost-effective, all-inclusive broadband municipal network.
Alvarion’s complete portfolio of wireless broadband products are ideally suited to meet the demands and challenges of a broadband municipal multi-purpose network and support a full range of network topology options, including PMP, PtP and Mesh. This offers considerable flexibility in deploying a network for complete citywide coverage.
![]()
In general, in most municipalities all three topologies along with Wi-Fi will be utilized for optimal coverage, performance and cost.
Municipalities have already realized many of the benefits of broadband connectivity for public safety applications and video surveillance with limited, application-specific solutions. To cost-effectively extend this capability, improve performance and support additional and more diverse citywide applications and services it is necessary to consider alternative network solutions. A citywide broadband wireless access network based on the 4G WiMAX global standard provides a common infrastructure with all of the attributes and features required for a high performance, cost-effective, multi-purpose municipal network.
If you’re interested in learning more about “Smart City” initiatives and the how to cost effectively build communication infrastructure, please sign up for our upcoming free webinar on Wednesday, September 15. The webinar will highlight a case study from City of Houston, a leading US city that is at the forefront of one such initiative. Additional details and registration information are available here: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/676764776.
![]()
There is rapidly growing interest among municipalities and public safety agencies worldwide to invest in multi-purpose, city-wide broadband networks, thereby creating a “Smart City.” The goal for these “Smart City” initiatives is to provide a cost-effective and efficient approach for managing the city’s day to day operations. The technology of choice for the “Smart City” is the 4G WiMAX wireless network, which allows cities and municipalities to invest in a single scalable network infrastructure that can satisfy the diverse requirements of multiple city agencies. For a cost-effective “Smart City” solution, municipalities require a single, multi-purpose network for a wide range of applications and services including public safety and security, mobile broadband connectivity for first responders, intelligent traffic systems, connecting multiple city buildings and agencies and more.
The shift from multiple single-application solutions to a common platform that can be shared by multiple agencies for diverse citywide applications and services is a dominant trend among cities and municipalities. A common multi-purpose network approach based on Point-to-Multipoint (PMP), Mesh, and Point-to-Point (PtP) wireless topologies for optimal coverage leads to lower initial investment, lower operating costs and better overall performance.
WiMAX technology, based on the IEEE 802.16e standard, has the features and attributes necessary to meet the cost, performance and coverage demands required for a wide area cost-effective, all-inclusive broadband municipal network.
Alvarion’s complete portfolio of wireless broadband products are ideally suited to meet the demands and challenges of a broadband municipal multi-purpose network and support a full range of network topology options, including PMP, PtP and Mesh. This offers considerable flexibility in deploying a network for complete citywide coverage.
PMP provides the majority of coverage with each base station supporting multiple stationary or mobile terminals. It is very easy to add or adjust terminal sites to address changing conditions. Even temporary terminals can be installed in a matter of hours within the base station coverage area to provide added surveillance for special events or planned gatherings or demonstrations.
Line-of-site PtP links can be used to provide a dedicated high capacity link to a business or educational campus, a shopping center or any other venue where the traffic volume is expected to be high. A high capacity wireless PtP link is also a preferred option for the backhaul connection to the core network. This will most often be more cost-effective than leased lines.
Coverage within the campus or shopping center environment can be achieved with a Mesh or Wi-Fi network.
In general, in most municipalities all three topologies along with Wi-Fi will be utilized for optimal coverage, performance and cost.
Municipalities have already realized many of the benefits of broadband connectivity for public safety applications and video surveillance with limited, application-specific solutions. To cost-effectively extend this capability, improve performance and support additional and more diverse citywide applications and services it is necessary to consider alternative network solutions. A citywide broadband wireless access network based on the 4G WiMAX global standard provides a common infrastructure with all of the attributes and features required for a high performance, cost-effective, multi-purpose municipal network.
If you’re interested in learning more about “Smart City” initiatives and the how to cost effectively build communication infrastructure, please sign up for our upcoming free webinar on Wednesday, September 15. The webinar will highlight a case study from City of Houston, a leading US city that is at the forefront of one such initiative. Additional details and registration information are available here: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/676764776.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
