Editor’s Note: Welcome to our weekly Reader Forum section. In an attempt to broaden our interaction with our readers we have created this forum for those with something meaningful to say to the wireless industry. We want to keep this as open as possible, but we maintain some editorial control to keep it free of commercials or attacks. Please send along submissions for this section to our editors at: [email protected]
There is a lot of buzz around the term “heterogeneous networks,” but a big reason for the attraction are centered around Wi-Fi and small-cell technologies and their business implication for major stakeholders – operators and infrastructure OEMs. Now it should be fairly easy to understand why Wi-Fi is the star attraction given that Wi-Fi radio infrastructure equipment is relatively inexpensive and spectrum is free. Inexpensive plus free adds up to a very compelling traffic offload alternate solution for operators.
However “cheap and free” almost always come hand in hand with limitations in “flexibility and quality.” By flexibility, I mean the ability to have rich statistics reporting, alarming, configuration, interoperability and traffic control functionality. Limited quality stems from the fact that the spectrum is unregulated and quality of experience and security cannot always be guaranteed. So let’s look at the business impact for the various stakeholders.
For infrastructure OEMs, Wi-Fi can definitely be seen a profit-eroding technology compared to cellular proprietary technologies. However simply ignoring Wi-Fi is a dangerous strategy as there are strong network infrastructure vendors like Cisco without a cellular radio legacy that will address the need of the operator. Ericsson realized this quickly with its acquisition of BelAir.
However they, or other OEMs, decide to position the Wi-Fi product suite with respect to cellular will determine their real success. I don’t believe that adding robust flexibility and quality standards to the Wi-Fi product suite is the right solution. That just positions the Wi-Fi equipment further away from the sweet “value” spot it was intended to serve. Instead, keep the Wi-Fi gear simple and affordable.
The greatest hotspot application threat to Wi-Fi is femtocell or “small cell” if physical size (for urban deployment) and pricing can be made comparable to Wi-Fi access points. I should state that most tier-one operators have enough spectrum to accommodate small-cell technology in hotspots, without having to deal with the tradeoff of flexibility and quality. OEMs should therefore spend more research and development resources positioning small-cell technology with rich flexibility, quality and security control functionality as the technology which is integrated with the macro cellular infrastructure. It is absolutely all right to have both Wi-Fi and small-cell technology solutions in your portfolio as long as they are positioned well.
For operators, Wi-Fi is a boon that should be adopted without hesitation to offload traffic in hot-spots in the cellular network. However, operators will have to address the challenge of not being able to control quality of experience. This is a good opportunity to introduce “performance tiered pricing.” Should the quality or throughput deteriorate in any way that affects consumer experience, the consumer or enterprise should be billed accordingly with different rate plans. Setting up this precedent with consumers and the FCC bodes well for operators to tackle the whole “net neutrality” debate. This will help defend monetization of the pipe, so to speak.
The American consumer is conditioned to paying for tiered service experience levels based on quality in consumer retail, insurance, banking and other sectors. Yet within wireless, consumers are only segmented by minutes and gigabytes in their service plans. This needs to evolve to more flexible and customizable service plans that automatically scale with the QoE level that is selected by the consumer and delivered. A very pragmatic way of approaching the discussion of technology choice and licensed verses unlicensed options is to address the requirement based on the consumer need.
In conclusion, stay consumer-centric. Ask yourself, what are the specific needs of the consumer and how does the chosen solution address those needs in a way that creates a benefit? The answer to this question will clearly identify whether a value (low flexibility, low cost Wi-Fi) solution or premium (high flexibility, higher cost small cell) solution is your best hotspot solution and the answer will vary for different customer applications across the network. Embrace the best of both technology options and think about how it is possible for a family to have both a Toyota and a Lexus in their garage.
This article is factually incorrect and superficial. It mentions Cellular technology is Proprietary, which is incorrect. Cellular technologies come under 3GPP/3GPP2 or IEEE (WiMAX). Regarding Cisco, it in fact tried to come to wireless by buying Navini networks and by acquiring Starent but it could not compete therefore exited.
Secondly, Ericsson buying Belair WiFi business considered to be very late. Alcatel Lucent has “Light Radio” WiFi and LTE built into a small Rubik’s cube size enclosure. Nokia Siemens Network had tie up with Belair since 2006 and recently they have tie up with Ruckus. Power Wave technologies have one small cell incorporates LTE and WiFi in small form factor. There are several important issues could have made the article attractive such as: SIM card authentication over WiFi. Signaling over load at the edge of Small cells and Macro cells. EPC overloading by Small cells, local traffic off loading at the WiFi or Small cell etc.
Thanks for adding the capabilities of NSN and ALU, but i think you missed my point in this article. For OEMs and Operators to be successful, it is not just about cramming features and functionality into boxes and competing on that dimension, it is about addressing customer needs and providing features that directly address the need. Any feature without a direct customer benefit is wasteful cost! If your LTE + WiFi cube costs 10-100 times as much as a WiFi AP and is being used for an application where quality and flexibility is not required or valued by the subscriber, then whats the point? For other situations, your cube may be the appropiate solution, but that should be a business decision, not a features decision. It’s time we stopped trying to build the best box and instead provide solutions to address Operator and subscriber needs within their budgets.