dailywireless.org » Cable vs Digital Cities: Championship Fight

Cable vs Digital Cities: Championship Fight

The bout between public wireless “clouds” vrs private cellular operators, may becoming more of a brawl — cable operators have entered the ring.

Consider Arcwave. The fixed wireless system uses cable’s DOCSIS protocol (Data Over Cable Service Interface Specifications) for their wireless cable modems. It has just been approved by Cox Business Services for deployment throughout the cable operator’s service areas, says Broadband Magazine.

Cox conducted field evaluations of Arcwave’s ARCXtend wireless plant extension solution, finding that it could establish links within Cox’s cable infrastructure without adverse impact.

“ARCXtend provides Cox with the ability to rapidly connect commercial buildings beyond the reach of our HFC [hybrid fiber coaxial] network without the delay and expense of digging up streets or deploying aerial fixed lines through a traditional plant extension,” stated Kristine Faulkner, VP of product development and management for Cox Business Services.

Arcwave offers the ARCXtend product as a means for cable operators to reach unserved small-to-medium enterprise (SME) customers.

Many cable operators are considering their wireless options. ARCXtend uses a proprietary system but WiFi switches and WiMax are also on the front burner, say industry observers.

Operators are now in the early stages of deploying DOCSIS 2.0 cable modems. DOCSIS 2.0 delivers up to 30 Mbps upstream and 40 Mbps down.

DOCSIS 2.0 features faster speeds and QOS for VoIP. The DOCSIS 2.0 standard was announced by CableLabs in April 2003. It enables cable operators to offer tiered services, faster speeds and more applications. Rather than lower prices, cable operators are offering higher speeds.

DOCSIS 3.0 will bring more downstream speeds — with channel bonding. Telecom Magazine calls DOCSIS 3.0 a “DSL Killer”. It will bond four or more 6 MHz channels into a data pipe. ARRIS’ pre-DOCSIS 3.0 gear will bond up to four channels in a 160 Mbps downstream channel. CED Magazine has more.

ARRIS and Xtend Networks say they can operate DOCSIS 2.0-based services in spectrum well beyond the traditional cable ceiling of 860 MHz.

Xtend’s overlay technology gives cable operators the ability to tap into spectrum as high as 3 GHz. Delivering commercial services above the 860 MHz mark (consumer cable services are typically offered at 860 MHz and below) is considered one of the first applications for the higher spectrum because it gives operators the ability to offer those business-class services without disturbing the spectrum set aside for consumers.

Cable operators are testing wireless “cable zones”.

Time Warner Cable and NetNearU are creating more “Cable Zones” (free to cable broadband subscribers). Their first one was in San Antonio, Texas, using Airespace gear (now owned by Cisco). Now NetNearU is supplying Time Warner with its TRACKOS software, allowing the speedy deployment of Wi-Fi network connections in several new service areas. It provides roaming services so subscribers can access Speed Zone hotspots anywhere within Time Warner’s territory.

If cable operators wanted to get serious about mobility, they could do 802.16e in the 2.5Ghz band (in partnership with Nextel/Sprint or Clearwire). According to Intel, you’d need WiMax antennas every 1/2 mile or so. That would deliver indoor coverage for wireless VoIP phones and mobile broadband for laptops. Cable operators already have the fiber backhaul.
Telephone companies are jumping in.
AT&T is installing a four tower WiMax service in Atlanta while BellSouth will provide broadband wireless in nearby Athens, Georgia, using Navini gear. Phone companies don’t have a mobility play. They’ve got one in WiMax.
Cellular operators are suiting up for a fight.
Verizon Wireless launched BroadbandAccess in San Antonio this week. Their EV-DO service, as well as V CAST, their broadband content service that delivers mobile television are being offered in San Antonio. V-Cast rides on Verizon’s CDMA-based EVDO data service.
Qualcomm’s MediaFLO network and Crown Castle have eschewed CDMA. They prefer COFDM broadband media services. Crown Castle will broadcast to millions at 1.7 GHz while Qualcomm is investing $800 million to launch their national cellular TV service in 2006 over its own 700 Mhz spectrum, broadcasting up to 20 channels for wireless carriers to sell their customers.
Cities are pushing back.
San Antonio Unwired, Pronto Networks (pdf) and BelAir Networks, have teamed to offer Wi-Fi hotspot service in the Alamo and downtown areas. It combines the BelAir100 and BelAir200 hardware with Pronto management software. SA Unwired plans to charge users $3 per hour, or $10 a day for wireless Internet access. As the network grows, SA Unwired may change its pricing.
Pronto s OSS is deployed in 16 cities, with more evaluations underway. Pronto is deployed in Corpus Christi, TX, an Intel Digital Cities showcase city, and is a key component of Intel’s Digital Cities “ecosystem”. Another WiFi provider in San Antonio is Wi-Fi San Antonio, which provides wireless service thoughout the city.
Cities like Madison, Tempe and Minneapolis have issued RFPs seeking wireless ISPs to provide citywide Wi-Fi. They don’t want to be service providers, they want to contract it out, reports MuniWireless. Earthlink, for example, was one of the twelve bidders on the Philadelphia RFP.

Philadelphia will own their network and lease bandwidth to private service providers. By not relying on taxpayer money, the cities avoid direct conflict with telecoms and cable companies.

Some cities are forming non-profit corporations to manage the system. These non-profit corporations provide “equal access” to competing commercial wireless ISPs who manage their own backend. A portion of the city’s access revenue goes to “digital divide” programs. Public service users get cheap rates because the infrastructure is shared.

Forbes Reviews “Equal Access”

“In 2000, the city of Portland, Ore., tried to force AT&T to open up its cable lines as a condition of a merger with cable operator Tele-Communications. That effort was shot down by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the court left a door open for ISPs, ruling that cable transmissions had elements of both information and telecommunications services.
Not everyone agreed. In 2002, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission ruled that cable transmissions were strictly an information service, protecting operators from having to share their lines.
But Brand X figured the 9th Circuit decision was a chance to keep in the game. “We decided we ought to appeal this thing,” says Pickrell. “If this is a telecom service, you should have common carrier rights.”
The company sued the FCC, and the 9th Circuit came down on their side, ruling that only Congress and the Supreme Court could reverse its decision and reclassify cable as an information service. But the FCC appealed–and in March, the Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides.

A decision is expected to be issued in the next two weeks, and it’s likely the court will make waves by ruling specifically on whether cable is an information or a telecommunication service.

Cable providers do not provide “equal access” to competitors. You have to use their ISP. Phone companies who run fiber to the curb have similar provisions. It’s their way or no way.

Competing cellular providers claim their high-speed EV-DO or HSPDA data services can deliver broadband wireless via the private sector — at no risk to taxpayers.

Intel’s Paul Butcher addressed the NYC Commission for unwiring The City (doc):

Access to broadband in of itself, will not accomplish the real change pursued by this committee. More email and more web browsing is not what this world needs. If this commission focuses solely on providing access, free access or more affordable access, the promise and the potential of your work will not be realized.
Real change; which benefits everyone, will only occur if there is an emphasis on tools that enable efficient and effective government, tools that enable citizens, foster business and economic health. Focus on tools for the fireman or police officer which ensures their safety. Enable parents to collaborate easily and from anywhere with teachers to ensure the success of their children. Monitor and control devices like parking and utility meters.
It would be too simplistic to recommend for example that New York should consider a two tiered network with WiMax providing backhaul to WiFi-Mesh devices mounted on light poles for street level access to Intel Centrino Laptops.
A thorough analysis which first identifies the purpose and tools which utilize the network, and then the technology capabilities required to meet those needs, will adequately answer the question of which technologies should be considered.

Municipal networks are becoming a holy war with independent Wireless ISPs up against cellular companies. Now cable operators and telcos are climbing into the ring…with born-again WiMax religion.

It’s a free-for-all! Everyone is crossing their fingers!