FierceWirelessFierceWirelessEuropeFierceDeveloperFierceMobileContentFierceBroadbandWirelessFierceVoIPFierceIPTVFierceTelecomFierceOnlineVideoFierceCable

Free Newsletter

About | View Sample | Privacy
Related Topics >> WiMAX | WiFi | Cable Operators | Cable Industry

Is WiFi the answer for cable companies?

Tools

The cable industry should push wireless home networks outside the residence and into the metro cloud, leveraging its content and available infrastructure to cover local service areas with a blanket of WiFi.

That was the opinion--admittedly a lonely one--voiced by Dave Park, vice president of wireless equipment vendor BelAir Networks during a panel session, "The Invisible Network: Wireless Broadband in the Home and Out of It," at The Cable Show in Washington, D.C. earlier this month.

"What's your angle? What's your edge to deliver wireless to your customers?" asked Park. "Most devices connect to WiFi."

According to Park, wireless changes the way cable sees and services customers. Long accustomed to serving households with single stream video content, cable is entering a stage the ability to leverage an Internet connection wirelessly creates a household of individual users so "every household that you deliver service into has more than the householder."

Cable should, Park urged, migrate that wireless connection and content into a metro WiFi cloud where it can serve those same devices and users on a wider scale with services that could include VoIP. It could also pave the way for cable operators to become wireless operators in a migration to a 4G mobile platform, he said.

 "Wireless has really evolved ... to something that connects to almost any device," he said, urging the industry to find a way to feed its content to those devices. "The cellular provider lock ... has been broken by the availability of applications."

 Park's concept uses a microcell technology "deployed down at street level where you're closer to the user" and leveraging existing cable infrastructure. This microcell network could then feed multiple WiFi-enabled devices within a cable serving area and then use "the other key ingredient, backhaul, whether it's fiber or DOCSIS," he said.

 The concept is being pursued by Cablevision Systems in the New York City metro area but is not wildly popular throughout the rest of the cable universe where the more common wireless approach is to use 3G or 4G licensed spectrum that the industry bought at FCC auctions.

 "Dave and I definitely part ways," said Timothy Burke, vice president of strategic technology for Liberty Global. "I am a spectrum bigot."

 That seems to echo much of the cable industry's perception. WiFi, while good and getting better with 802.11n, is unlicensed and therefore open to interference and other limiting issues.

 "The landscape is littered with muni-WiFi operations. You need to control and own the spectrum," Burke continued, concluding that Park's vision of a wireless metro play is "not going to happen in the uncontrolled WiFi macro world, outdoor world."

 If you want licensed spectrum, there's always WiMAX, Park rebutted, pointing out that BelAir's technology is complementary with that evolving 4G technology being used most notably by cable operators such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks via a partnership with Clearwire.

 The two technologies, WiFi and WiMAX "have different roles to play," he said. Licensed provides more control but unlicensed has more potential for more devices that already are connecting to WiFi.

 Another set of spectrum, white space, the clusters of high powered air being vacated by broadcasters moving to digital, also got some short, albeit limited, attention from the panelists.

 "People aren't talking about replacing their existing WiFi" with new devices based on white space spectrum, said Tom du Breuil, director of systems engineering at Motorola.

 On the other hand, white space can deliver services more potently across a bigger swath and "there's nothing in white space to say you can only use one 6 MHz slot at a time," he continued. That, in turn, opens up an opportunity within the home networking space because the spectrum is powerful enough to deliver video-cable's mainstay-to multiple devices within a residential network.

 "It certainly presents an opportunity because it is another networking technology" but the operator would need in-home shielding to prevent interference with and from other devices, he said.

 Cable's first priority should be transporting its content around the residence, said Burke. Once that's accomplished, the cable industry should start to worry about how to move that content wirelessly to outside devices. And when it comes to inside devices, he concluded, "no one wireless solution seems suitable for all applications."

 WiFi and 802.11n in particular have potential, he said, but "I really wouldn't categorize it as being easy to use" in either 2.4 or 5 GHz spectrum. "Video transport is certainly a challenge with its requirements" and 802.11n "might be just a tool to bring content in the home and move it around."

 Inside the home, he emphasized, is where it's happening for WiFi, not outside it. "You really have to seize control of that networking," he advised.

 That, though, is the old challenge, said Park; moving the content outside the home network, or expanding that home network to the wider area network, is the new challenge. "MSOs are not used to being the laggard," he said, urging cable companies to deploy WiFi today and use its content assets to migrate to 4G  technology, probably WiMAX tomorrow.


SHARE
WITH:
Email Twitter Facebook LinkedIn StumbleUpon
Get Your FREE FierceBroadbandWireless Email Newsletter:

Comments (8) | Post a comment
More stories about Cable Industry   WiMAX   WiFi   Cable Operators  

Comments

I do agree with Mr. Burke that Metro WiFi has not enjoyed the success that was predicted and it is likely not going to. However, the issue is not in the use of unlicensed spectrum in the outdoor domain, it is in the fact that WiFi as a collision based network cannot satisfy the latency demands of VoIP applications and video delivery over WiFi in the metro space is too daunting for the "shared" capacity of WiFi to ever be deployed effectively. On the other hand, unlicensed spectrum is so abundant that the use of licensed spectrum to deliver high capacity VoIP, data and video services will likely continue to fail the economic test relative to the use of unlicensed spectrum. The bottom line is that licensed spectrum costs too much for the amount necessary to deliver these services effectively. Unlicensed spectrum is the answer. More later on how it can be done.
You must be kidding we transport HDTV 15 miles and have city WIFI wotking . You need to take a view at people who know how tomake wireless work. We have link 5.8Ghz that is 36 miles long and we transport data Tv and Voip over link at less than 6Ms. Look again at WIMAX
Mr. Park pushing a service that requires equipment made by his company is hardly big news. The metro wifi business has proven to be non-viable so far. People want service where they use their laptops: inside buildings. Metro wifi cannot deliver adequate service and the market is being taken by cellular carriers who can penetrate buildings with their high powered licensed technology.
Mr Parks brings up a good point, but five years too late. I think the cable companies should have been putting up WiFi equipment using their cable infrastucture as the backhual. WiFi phones could have been the "killer ap". Instead the iPhone made a splash with the cellular market first. My guess is that the market will move to the 700MHz equipment and LTE will be the dominate standard in the next ten years. Cable companies will slowly lose IP phone and internet service and be left with providing only cable TV.
I agree; Comcast is scratching their head on this though. They got caught with their pants down by FiOS. It's going to happen again to them with 4G technologies.
I think Park is correct. LTE and 4G are still a long way from being reality. WiMax will suffer and lose because there will not be enough devices. LTE will have to move to a micro cell deployment architecture to deliver on the promise. WiFi is here and now. Cable cos can deploy today at a very low cost and then retrofit their deployments with LTE when it hits critical mass.
Metro WiFi did not have much success because it's capabilities were overpromised and it's cost way under projected. It's time to get past that. Looking at it in the future, it can still provide very high performance in fixed environments with newer equipment. For example, 802.11n can deliver 100Mbps or more. If you are in a police car, that's a massive amount of bandwidth. That provides real-time video when they have someone pulled over. If it's coupled with proprietary backhaul infrastructure, then you can eliminate the latency problems for video and VoIP. On top of that, equipment costs have come down to as little as $50 per AP for lower performance environments. Our current design supports up to 25mbps per hop with less than 2ms latency and less than 1Mbps loss of performance. Our next design will be several times that for the same price. If you could deliver that kind of performance for $,3000-$9,000 per square mile, then there are many more options for profitability and municipal capabilities.
We have patented software that reduces latency to the same levels as POTS and it's built-in into our Dual WiFi + GSM Smartphone. We also have VCC (Voice Call Continuity) so if during a WiFi call via our smartphone user moves out of a WiFi zone the call is smoothly and automatically transferred to the GSM operator with the strongest local signalling. Our Smartphone cannot be stopped from making low-cost SIP VOIP Calls and IPTV downloads by the GSM operator as we direct-connect and do not pass through the GSM operator's 'walled-garden'. For technical specifications, please visit www.mazingo.tv

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.