Editorial : Wi-Fi vs. 3G: Myths and Realities

If you believe Wi-Fi makes 3G too little too late, then you probably also believed that VoIP would have replaced the PSTN by now.

Wi-Fi is being hyped to the level of being the next best thing after the Internet—and with Wi-Fi, who needs 3G?

OK, what are the myths and what are the realities in this debate?

First, a little about Wi-Fi. The term is short for Wireless Fidelity, coined by a working group to describe a class of wireless LAN products conforming to a set of IEEE standards (802.11). At the 30,000-foot view, a laptop with a Wi-Fi card can interconnect wirelessly to your corporate LAN, DSL or cable modem connection, or at a public access point (a “hotspot”) in an airport lounge, hotel lobby or coffee shop.

The reality is that Wi-Fi is a very big deal. The giant computer software and network product companies—Microsoft, Cisco, IBM, Intel, you name it—are pouring billions into product development. In-Stat/MDR reports that in the first six months of this year, investors plunked down $1.3 billion on 131 802.11 start-ups. That’s 10 percent of all venture capital funding for that period. Finally, and probably most significantly, every university in the country is covering its campus with 802.11 radio equipment.

So Wi-Fi will have an impact. But the jury is still out on whether the impact of this investment will be the same as the tens of billions invested and lost in fiber optic technologies in the late 1990s through 2001.

Top 10 Wi-Fi Myths

Wi-Fi hype has filled the vacuum left over from the VoIP hypesters of the late 1990s. Here are my top 10 stupid pronouncements or conclusions I have heard about Wi-Fi.

1. Sufficient Spectrum

The Wi-Fi proponents sound a lot like the Old West promoters, proclaiming plenty of elbow room for everyone. The truth is there is not enough capacity to justify the hype that Wi-Fi will replace the need for licensed spectrum.

Because of capacity constraints, Wi-Fi will go the way of the CB radio—in other words, it will collapse under the weight of its own usage success. Note: At 2.4 gHz, where Wi-Fi operates today, only three networks can function in or near a location.

Yes, there are capacity expansion options, but those have problems as well. First, expand to the higher 5 gHz spectrum band where the FCC assigned channels for 11 networks. The problem is that the higher frequency (5 gHz) is less desirable because of the shorter broadcast range. In that respect it’s just like TV, where VHF licenses at 54–216 mHz are more valuable than UHF licenses at 512–806 mHz, due to coverage range and reception quality.

So instead of three networks with a 300-foot-plus range with 802.11b at 2.4 gHz, you get 11 networks covering somewhere around 100 feet or less with 802.11a at 5 gHz spectrum.