RAA Group

Three articles I want to point out to you that should get you thinking about the future of Wi-Fi:

(1) Andy Abramson’s long and thoughtful piece about sponsored Wi-Fi, sending party pays and the future of media in which he argues:

“Public Wireless” really takes hold, not from the telcos, or even the cable companies, but from the likes of Google, who understand how to monetize “free” better than anyone, and who also have the delivery billing system in place to bill back to a “sender” the same way they can bill back a click to an advertiser. Google, will then work with their “partners” in Clearwire, not to promote 4G WiMax as the pipe, but to use real WiMax in consort with companies like Comcast, Covad and TowerStream to deliver super fast Gigabit wireless to a series of access points around the country, where it then is distributed using WiFi. This is more than a likely scenario as Google has been a pioneer in Public Sponsored WiFi access for sometime, with their Mountain View WiFi network which has been up and running for a few years, surviving the failed Earthlink, MetroFi and other third party operator networks. By blending the “sponsored” public access model as Google has done with “sending party pays” the end user sees little or no cost.

(2) Network World’s eight ways 802.11n changes Wi-Fi

According to Network World, the approval of the 802.11n standard means improved security, higher data rates, better RF and interference management, use of Wi-Fi by devices never before associated with Wi-Fi, connecting to non-WiFi networks, personal area Wi-Fi (e.g. Wi-Fi Direct, which allows a Wi-Fi device such as the iPod Touch to connect directly to another Wi-Fi device such as a printer).

This is nothing new to those of you who have read Ken Biba’s articles on MuniWireless. If you have not read Ken’s articles, click on the links below:

The King is Dead, Long Live the King: 802.11n dramatically improves Wi-Fi outdoors

Real world measurements show muni Wi-Fi networks outperform WiMAX and cellular

(3) What Wi-Fi Direct means for Mac users: Glenn Fleishman has written a very informative article about how the Wi-Fi Alliance’s new Wi-Fi Direct standard greatly improves ad hoc Wi-Fi networking, that is, Wi-Fi connections between two devices (without the need of going through a base station).

via muniwireless.com

I was inspired to do a long article about Wi-Fi at conferences by Joel Spolsky’s article Wi-Fi At Conferences where he asks why Wi-Fi works so poorly at tech conferences. Muniwireless has organized conferences in the past and I won’t say that the Wi-Fi at our events has ben the very best either (however, it was better than at most events I’ve attended). You would think that by now, Wi-Fi access at conferences, especially tech events, would be something no one would even notice — that is, it should just work well. But that’s rarely the case.

Dewayne Hendricks (who has provided Wi-Fi at David Isenberg’s Freedom To Connect events in Washington DC, Social Capital 2009 in San Francisco, West Coast Green 2009 in San Francisco and others) pointed out that in many hotels and conference centers, the existing Wi-Fi network can handle only 20 to 25 connections at one time and the bandwidth for the network is barely enough for people who are downloading and uploading data. Conferences today have to deal with people who are updating blogs, Twitter feeds, and Facebook pages, and who are sending photos, video clips, and reports. Some attendees are also using Skype and other VOIP applications. Unfortunately, many venues are too cheap to install new 802.11n access points, and because the bandwidth that feeds into the network is too paltry, the conference organizer – if it wants to guarantee a good Wi-Fi experience – will have to bring in both the access points AND the bandwidth (for example, Covad). This dramatically increases the cost of hosting an event. (Note: Dewayne used Apple Airport Extreme 802.11n access points which worked very well at the Freedom to Connect event held in March 2009 at the AFI Silver Theater in Silver Spring, MD. I attended this event and would rate the Wi-Fi experience outstanding.)

Here is a sample quote (dated September 2009) from a well-known bandwidth provider for bringing in (wireless) bandwidth into a venue (each amount quoted below is a one-time fee). This is just the bandwidth; it does not include the access points, the fee charged by the Wi-Fi service providers for installing the access points, managing the event’s Wi-Fi network, dealing with problems and meltdowns, etc.

• 5 Mbps: $3999
• 10 Mbps: $5999
• 20 Mbps: $9999
• 30 Mbps: $11,999
• 45 Mbps: $16,999

Andy Abramson, founder of Comunicano, agrees with Dewayne’s assessment of hotel Wi-Fi and adds that most hotels have less than 5 MB of connectivity. Some hotels limit the number of users to 250 concurrent users. Andy believes that hotels have not realized how much Wi-Fi means to an event’s (and the hotel’s) reputation. Most conference attendees rate Wi-Fi connectivity as one of the three most important needs at a conference.

Q&A with Tim Pozar on how to improve conference Wi-Fi

I wanted to unravel the mystery surrounding what it takes to bring good Wi-Fi to conferences by asking Tim Pozar, a network engineer who has been hired by conferences such as TechCrunch 2009, Intel Developers Forum, SNAP and more. Below is our Q&A.

(1) Why is Wi-Fi service so horrible at most conferences, including at hotels where there’s already Wi-Fi and/or wired broadband? What can you do to improve Wi-Fi service?

There are several reasons. In the case of built-in Wi-Fi at hotels, they really don’t design it for conferences. They design it for general guest use around the hotel. They install a minimal set of access points and don’t use a number of the tricks we have used for conferences. Also, on-site hotel staff usually do not have technical expertise to address issues. Most of these installs were done by third parties that may not currently have a support contract with the hotel. If they do, or if the hotel supports it, it is done off-site by some remote network operations center (NOC).

Where a conference organizer brings in an company to provide Wi-Fi access and the network fails, it can be for a number of reasons. Typically I see small companies that are trying to grow larger and don’t test the deployment or think through all the failure points that can happen with a large-scale deployment. When I was called in to solve the Wi-Fi problems at TechCrunch 2008, the wireless provider had some serious problems, not the least of which was the DHCP server they were running, which only supported 250 or so leases. Needless to say, that alone stopped the use of the wireless network pretty early on in the conference until I came in to fix it.

I also notice that many vendors just don’t understand RF propagation and how to manage it. They think that more is better: more access points and/or more power. In most cases, this is the opposite of what you want to do as it just congests the spectrum even more. There are a number of tricks that we use at MSI to try to manage the spectrum.

Redundancy plays a big part of a deployment. If you have a conference that depends on broadband for the success of the event, you can’t have a single point of failure. Having multiple transit providers, DHCP servers, etc. are critical as things fail all the time. Having any service fail will likely make the deployment unusable and worthless for the event organizer.

(2) Why haven’t hotels and conference centers done much to improve the quality of wireless broadband for conference organizers who are already paying a lot of money to host events at these locations?

Good question. It seems that large hotel chains could make this a profitable item, but as with most hotels, they figure they have a captured event and don’t need to put any more effort into this. Also, as mentioned above,
they have had third parties come in and do the deployment. One size does not fit all events and they almost never have technical staff on site to address the problems of this deployment because it costs too much to keep them on the hotel’s payroll.

(3) Why do most conference organizers fail to provide good Wi-Fi? Ignorance? Cheapness? Both?

Both. You get what you pay for. MSI’s deployments include a significant staff that can deploy and address problems during the event quickly. The network engineers that MSI uses (including me) are veterans of decades of networking experience. I have seen a number of wireless providers who think all they need is a broadband connection and some access points thrown around the location. Of course, it is much more complicated than that.

Event organizers don’t have the technical background and skills to do the “due diligence” to see if a vendor has the ability to pull of a deployment. They really need to look at the vendor’s track record with similar deployments and many just don’t have the time. In other cases, the event organizer will choose the wireless vendor who is offering the cheapest solution.

(4) What advice would you give conference organizers? What should they look for, what questions should they ask the hotel or the company they are hiring to bring in Wi-Fi to the conference?

As mentioned above, look at the track record of the company. Ask for references. Ask for previous event’s reports. (MSI always creates daily reports on an event, including bandwidth and number of users. It also includes problems encountered.) Ask them about their technical qualifications. Have they done similar events? How many people attended these events? Were they “tech” events where everyone shows up with multiple devices — laptops, smartphones, etc.?

Meet with the company and discuss the event’s requirements. Ask them how they would deploy the network in detail: where they would place access points, how they are going to bring in bandwidth. Ask them about
redundancy such as transit providers, equipment, staffing. Ask if the gear they are going to deploy has been used at events of similar size recently. Ask them about how they will deal with outages and problems. Will they provide a high-level network engineer at all times? How will they be reached during the event?

(5) In terms of costs for providing Wi-Fi at an event, how much should a conference organizer budget (taking into account  the number of attendees, size of venue, type of event — obviously a conference around streaming video/entertainment would suck up more bandwidth)?

This can vary greatly from $2000 a day for a small event (up to 300 people) and no redundancy; to $100,000 and more per day for larger events (up to 30,000 people) that could take over a conference hall like Moscone Center in San Francisco, and a serious build out that would address multiple failure points.

Tim Pozar has been a network and RF engineer for more than 20 years. Past projects, besides broadband deployment for conferences, are a 30Mb/s, 50Km connection the the Farallon Islands to support personal on the island and a live streaming camera for the California Academy of Sciences. Currently he is designing and deploying a city wide fiber network for the City of San Francisco. Pozar also designs and deploys VoIP networks for national teleconferencing companies and high reliability Internet networks for enterprise and ISP companies.

I have made this article into a PDF file posted on Scribd so you can download it, print it, send it around.

via muniwireless.com

While Hispanics trail other U.S. populations in overall access to the Internet, they also are among the most avid users of mobile broadband, a new report finds.

In fact, 53 percent of Hispanics use mobile broadband, compared to 33 percent of whites, according to the report, published Wednesday by the nonprofit Hispanic Institute.

Hispanics also outpace the general population when it comes to digital media consumption, with 42 percent accessing and downloading digital media, compared to 35 percent of those in the general population.

The report notes that there are 48 million Hispanics living in the U.S. with 81 percent of them concentrated in 10 states, including Florida, which has 20 percent of the Hispanic population.

The report suggests that policymakers consider Hispanics’ concerns as they develop a national broadband strategy.

It recommends, among other things, that broadband access be expanded, and that consumer-friendly tax policies be implemented to ensure that not only Hispanics, but other minority and lower-income populations, can continue to afford wireless broadband services.

In addition, the report recommends that Lifeline/Link-Up programs continue to offer discounts to qualified, low-income wireless customers. “These policies are essential to help Hispanics make a complete transition to mobile participation in the new American innovation economy,” the report states.

Click here to read the full report.

Yesterday, the Feds awarded $3.4 billion to 100 smart grid projects across the U.S. There were about 400 total proposals. Since these are 50-50 matching grants, that means total dollars being queued up by these entities for smart grids is quite substantial.

For public and private sector organizations seeking broadband ARRA grants or planning to build networks without these grants, this smart grid investment could have stimulating effect. Those who stand to really benefit are urban areas submitting broadband adoption and public computer center proposals, and urban areas that may have given up on ARRA altogether after seeing the NOFA rules.

Big picture view

The best way to describe things so you see why yesterday’s news is important is to break down a smart grid into its main components.

There is the smart meter device that’s attached to (or built into) water, gas and electric utility meters at commercial and residential buildings to collect data on energy usage. The data collected can help utility companies manage their energy resources more effectively. Utilities can also communicate with these meters, sending data, commands to turn down air conditioners, queries to find the source of water leaks, etc.

Smart meter devices generally have their data aggregated to another computing device mounted at some point in the neighborhood, maybe one aggregation point per 100 dwellings (a hypothetical number). Then all of the aggregation points have to traffic their data back to the utility or wherever else it needs to go.

Overall, the smart grid can also be tapped to manage mobile utility workforces who can communicate with office staff and smart meters, as well as access office computer networks, via wireless mesh built into the grid and handheld mobile devices. The grid is also envision as a cost effective way to move energy such as that collected on windmill farms from one point of the country to another.

A primary intersection between smart grid and broadband potentially exists through the data backhaul infrastructure of the grid. A community’s fiber network can provide the backhaul for this aggregated data. Or a utility can build its own fiber backhaul and determine how to make that fiber available for local government and other institutions for their use. These stimulus grants went to public utilities, so local government and the community can have some influence in a discussion on the matter.

The mechanics of this whole smart grid are complex, but you get the big picture view. All of the things people are talking about doing with smart grid, such as moving “green” energy from windmill farms and proactively managing energy usage, require at some point a fast data connection. That means fiber (the ideal) or possibly super-fast fixed wireless.

How to leverage the opportunity

Community broadband projects that survive the first phase of cuts in the NOFA round 1 funding process will soon go into a due diligence phase where NTIA/RUS will ask applicants to clarify and fine-tune their proposals. If an applicant is in an area that won one of these smart grid grants, they need to get with the smart grid winner ASAP and determine how the broadband proposal can be tweaked to incorporate, or integrate with, aspects of the smart grid project.

The end goal for NOFA applicants would be to strengthen the business case or the technology strategy of the broadband proposal. For the smart grid grant winners, this collaboration can lead to a better overall infrastructure that moves their data more efficiently. You can even contact the 300 applicants that didn’t win a grant. Smart grid is pretty important in utilities’ future plans, so they should at least listen to what you have to say.

Urban areas definitely need to jump on this opportunity with both feet. Public utilities in Philadelphia and Baltimore are just two major cities that won big grants, and these are areas that have little or no chance at getting an infrastructure grant. But if big cities have broadband adoption and/or public computer center proposals in the queue as Philly does, they possibly can work out a way to tap into aspects of the smart grids wireless network or backhaul. Because the network infrastructure would already be paid for, NOFA applicants can make a stronger case for financial sustainability of the project.

The devilish details

When contemplating the details of making this work, the first thing I always consider is the politics. Big utility companies in big cities mean potentially big political headaches trying to integrate the efforts needed to make this whole vision work. On the other hand, no risk, no reward, no pain, no gain.

There are a number of technology and potentially complex standards issues at play that have to be worked out. Different smart grid companies use different technologies for the devices that sit on meters, and this can play havoc with getting the data to a standard backhaul pipe such as a fiber or a WiMAX network. Not all of those devices are built around IP-based technology.

While those who understand WiFi networks’ potential to improve utility meter management praise the use of wireless mesh by some smart grid companies, some of these companies use different wireless than 802.11. Looking at which smart grid projects receive funding will help determine what standards should start to shake out. Did the IP-based projects get the lion’s share of the awards?

Bottom line? It’s clear where there is the potential for an intersect, and why it behooves broadband stimulus applicants to meet with utilities winning smart grid grants. But everyone involved must be prepared for a lot of work to make the integration happen.

Lawmakers Float Bill to Boost Rural Broadband
By Kenneth Corbin
November 6, 2009

Lawmakers are set to consider a measure next week to reform the federal subsidy paid to telephone companies to provide service to low-income and rural households to include broadband service.

Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Lee Terry (R-Neb.) this morning released draft language of a bill that aims to curb waste in the Universal Service Fund (USF) and shift money from phone to Internet service in areas on the wrong side of the digital divide.

“The Universal Service Fund is broken,” Boucher and Terry said in a statement. “The measure will expand who pays into the fund, cap the growth of the fund and modernize the fund by allowing its use for the deployment of high-speed broadband service.”

Boucher issued a nearly identical statement when he and Terry introduced a previous version of the USF reform bill in 2006.

The House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, which Boucher chairs, is set to consider the measure at a hearing Nov. 17.

The drive to reform the USF revisits a long-deferred item on the policy agenda at the Federal Communications Commission, the agency that oversees the fund.

The FCC is currently working to develop a national broadband strategy due to Congress in February. At a conference in Washington yesterday, Brian David, a director of the FCC’s National Broadband Task Force, hinted that USF reform would likely be included in the plan’s recommendations.

David also floated the idea of a federally recognized digital outreach service to speed adoption of broadband technology similar to the AmeriCorps program, as well as an education campaign similar to the media blitz the FCC spearheaded in advance of the digital television transition.

“We are one of the last of the major countries to do this sort of plan,” David said. “We are at a point in this technology … where we are close to if not past the tipping point where it is no longer just an advantage to be online. It has become — in our view, in my view — a disadvantage fundamentally to not be online.”

Boucher and Terry’s bill echoes complaints that the USF has failed to keep pace with the evolving demands of the telecommunications landscape, where

Just yesterday, the leading lobby of the cable industry released a petition it submitted to the FCC calling for USF reform, claiming the program wastes as much as $2 billion annually funding telephone companies in areas where non-subsidized companies already offer service.

The bill also drew early praise from AT&T (NYSE: T). Tim McKone, the telecom giant’s executive vice president of federal relations, said the measure “recognizes that we cannot accomplish President Obama’s goal of universal and affordable broadband for all Americans without also fixing the federal universal service fund.”

Under the bill, recipients of Universal Service funding would be required to provide high-speed Internet service within five years of its enactment, aiming to do for broadband what the fund did for telephone service. Broadband, defined by the bill as access with a download connection speed of 1.5 megabits per second, would be classified as a universal service, and the USF bidding process would be opened to wireless providers.

“This bill brings the fund into the 21st century by modernizing it and allowing it to play a role in our country’s plan for eventual ubiquitous broadband,” Terry said.

The Facts About FM Radio In Mobile Phones

FM Radio Receivers in Mobile Phones

There is a strong belief among many in the radio industry that FM radio receivers should be incorporated into virtually all mobile devices, including mobile phones. Such a move helps to perpetuate the ubiquitous nature of radio and to provide a communication lifeline during times of crisis or natural disaster. Some may wonder why FM radio receivers are necessary when many mobile devices already have access to radio through internet connections. When radio is needed most it’s least likely to be available through an internet connection on a mobile device and only available when a mobile device has an FM receiver built-in.

Radio’s Importance in Times of Crisis

In January 2009, parts of the Midwestern United States were struck by a voracious winter storm. Combinations of snow and ice virtually paralyzed many areas. Owensboro, Kentucky was one area struck exceptionally hard and declared a federal disaster area. Residents were without power, land line communication, mobile phone communication and cable television. The only functioning source of information was “over the air” broadcasting. A nearby radio station run by the Cromwell Group was broadcasting. However, residents could only tap into the radio station with a radio receiving device that did not require an external power source (such as a battery-operated or crank radio, or a mobile phone with a built-in FM receiver).

Mobile phones were incapacitated because the mobile phone infrastructure was not working. That means internet access over the mobile phone network was also incapacitated. Access to information using a mobile phone was only possible if the mobile phone contained an FM receiver.

Capacity and Bandwidth: Over the Air Radio Versus Internet-Based Radio

What about cases in which the mobile networks are still functioning? Mobile networks are built assuming that only a percentage of users will use the network at the same time. On occasions in which usage begins to exceed capacity, the networks begin to exhibit stress (we’ve all experienced the “all circuits are busy” message from time to time). In times of crisis when all other means of communication have been disabled, usage of the network to talk and to access information using a mobile internet connection has been shown to skyrocket. Will networks be able to handle the burden and still be able to support access to critical information from radio broadcasts over mobile internet connections? With FM receivers in mobile devices one would not need to worry about this issue. Essential information would be available from nearby radio stations via “over the air” signals that are unaffected by network burden.

Bud Walters, owner of Cromwell Group, summed it up succinctly after January’s Midwestern storm by saying, “If there ever was a case for FM radio receivers in cell phones, this is it. Everyone has a cell phone, now useless. The cell phone would not be useless if it had an FM radio in it.”

The Current State of FM Radio Receivers in Mobile Devices

Why not add an inexpensive analog FM radio receiver into all mobile devices? It provides essential access to critical information over the air during times of crisis using a device that consumers will already be carrying.

Broadcom recently announced an integrated circuit device that combines WiFi, Bluetooth and FM on a single “chip,” making it easier for manufacturers to integrate essential functionality in one chip.

Verizon Wireless, AT&T and T-Mobile are including FM radio-capable handsets in their offering and the radio industry is working on getting Apple on board as well. In fact, the Apple iPhone 3GS includes the Broadcom chip described above which has FM receiver capability. It is not a current function of the 3GS but can be easily included in a future upgrade since the FM-capable device is already present in the current design.

Nokia has sold more than 700 million devices with built-in FM radio receivers worldwide, demonstrating consumer recognition of the value.

What Can You Do?

Tell us your thoughts on this initiative by visiting www.radioheardhere.com/fmchip. Spread the word among your radio industry colleagues and ask them to do the same. Spread the word to listeners over the air and on your radio station website and ask them to voice their support for FM radio on cell phones. Together, we can mobilize this initiative throughout the industry and the listening population to demonstrate the fundamental necessity for FM radio receivers in mobile devices.

After a long period of planning and deployment, Miami Beach (Florida) has launched its citywide free Wi-Fi service. The network provides free Wi-Fi access with 95% outdoor coverage and 70% indoor coverage up through the second floor of buildings. The city is also using the network for public safety and other municipal departments, allowing employees to use laptops and handheld devices to perform tasks that include building inspections, public works and code compliance.

Miami Beach is one of the few cities that offer free citywide Wi-Fi service. Others have abandoned their projects after private companies such as EarthLink left the business. Municipalities, such as St. Cloud in Florida, are struggling to maintain free Wi-Fi access in the face of budget cuts. St. Cloud’s city council had initially voted to shut down the public access side of the network, but fierce opposition from residents, many of whom use the network because they cannot afford to pay for Internet access, has forced the city to keep the network open.

* * * * * * * *

Report on the WiMAX Band (2.5 GHz) after the FCC auction is now available. Click here to find out more and to purchase the report.