Need metro-scale broadband? Wireless is increasingly the way to go.
We recently did a study of the cost-effectiveness of wide-area (“outdoor”) wireless access vs. wire. OK, sure, if you’ve got FIOS or cable broadband or maybe a newer implementation of DSL or similar metro-area broadband service, you’ll likely opt for wire. My Comcast connection has over the years been surprisingly reliable (five nines, I’m sure), and the performance has improved to where I occasionally see ten megabits or even a bit more on the downlink. But this service does cost about $43/month, and I still have to pay for my mobile broadband service at $40-$60/month. Add the two together, and things ain’t cheap. And, of course, there’s always the question of what to do when wired broadband service isn’t available at all, as is almost always the case in many otherwise developed places on the planet. There are many smaller towns, villages, and similar venues that would be satisfied with fixed broadband service, but such can’t always be provisioned by wire.
Why? Because of the very serious cost involved in hanging wires or burying them in the ground. This is very expensive in established areas because of the expense (including vast dollars spent on legal work, permitting, hearings, etc.), and, while installation can be easier than in big cities, investment in suburban and rural venues can be unjustifiable because less-populated venues have inherently less demand and thus less cash flow and ROI. And even if wired service is available, it’s likely to be even more expensive than similar capabilities provisioned by broadband wireless. Why? Well, someone has to recover all of the costs associated with installing all of that wire, and that someone would be the carrier. Unless there’s major competition to hold down prices, wired broadband service can be a vicious circle of high costs leading to high prices leading to less demand leading to less investment leading to many underserved people everywhere. And major competition can really only occur in highly-populated areas, and sometimes not even there. The City of Boston, for example, is hopping mad at Verizon for delays in getting FIOS up and running in what many might think of as one of the true no-brainer broadband centers of the universe.
Which led to some thinking – just how cost effective is the chief technological competitor to wired broadband, fixed wireless access, anyway? Note that mobile broadband, if required, can always be implemented via Wi-Fi at the edge of the fixed access link, just as is the case with wire, so fixed broadband should be a very popular option indeed if its cost profile is a sufficient improvement over wire. And this led to a discussion of the possibilities with my old friend Robb Henshaw, who is now Director of Marketing and Communications at wireless pioneer and industry leader Proxim Wireless. And that led to access to the information required for case studies of a couple of interesting real-world fixed-broadband installations, and ultimately to a new Farpoint Group White Paper, available with a brief free registration. This document presents a total cost of ownership (TCO) model for fixed wireless, and reviews the examples that Robb and I discussed. I think you’ll find this piece interesting and instructive, and it makes a great case for fixed broadband wireless.
My general rule remains – if you can use wire (wire is available, provides sufficient performance, and has the best price/performance), you should use wire. Increasingly, however, wireless is the cost-effective (and often only, regardless) option – and, as we discuss in the White Paper, very cost effective indeed.
