Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to DaneJasper
Re: A Solution Without a Need
said by DaneJasper  :Both Cisco and Tropos are just too darned expensive, in my opinion. I agree. Hasn't the #1 reason for implementing 802.11 hotspots and larger ad hoc, grassroots WLANs (in hopes of creating the first WMAN) been because of inexpensive, off-the-shelf 802.11b equipment? That Cisco 2500 that's been bringing T-1 service to the company LAN for the last decade without a single failure was well worth its several-thousand dollar price tag. The thing is that T-1 and Ethernet have been around for a whole lot longer than 802.11, and will still be around long after 802.11x has become as obsolete as the original 1 Mbps 802.11 stuff is today.
Spending top dollar on equipment that's designed for a standard that's already at the end of its lifespan is like buying a new Mercedes to take to the demolition derby.
As for feeding the upstream via DOCSIS, and competing with oneself and pole mounting, there might be some applications. It's not so much that there are applications (although I wouldn't take it as a given; Wi-Fi hotspots are still boutique offerings), it's more about the dubious efficacy of using Cisco's Aironet 1520 system to turn a cable company into a WISP just like that. For such an expensive product, it leaves the bulk of the engineering challenges, namely powering the devices, to the customer. No thanks!
For example, a city owned municipal cable system which wants city-wide WiFi, and isn't concerned about the fact that it's competing with it's own cable Internet access. Perhaps they're charging something extra to use the WiFi, who knows. Are there any city-owned municipal cable systems in America?
I think the more likely scenario would be a small city or suburban town that makes a sweetheart deal with their cable franchisee to make it so that they too can brag of being "wireless", mainly to benefit the politicians. The cable company would most likely receive a set fee from the municipality for building the WMAN, and wouldn't expect to turn a profit from subscriber fees. What's more, the politicians will want public areas (parks, recreational and sports arenas, the town square, etc., places where there never was and never will be any use for an expanded conventional cable infrastructure) to have free coverage.
If I was a major cable company manager, I'd be pretty conservative. I wouldn't want to commingle our large, established core business with this relatively small, risky venture. I'd want the WISP to be completely separate, from our fiber backbone outwards. I'd built a bare-minimum WISP plant with an expected lifespan of a year, maybe two. After that time, I'd expect 802.16, Canopy and whatever might come along to make an 802.11 network pointless and impractical, let the town pay us a second time to remove the WISP, and get back to our core business. |
