FTTH and Broadband-Wireless: An Apples and Oranges Relationship

Tell a Friend

A lot of my work involves assessing community requirements, then selecting the technology and business model that makes the most sense, and I believe W2i's thesis is correct: Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) and wireless do respond to very different needs, in the market, in general, and in communities, specifically. Your bullet points, however, seem somewhat jumbled. Let me explain a little.

First, the "H" in FTTH of course stands for home. This implies residential consumer services. Comparing it to "wireless infrastructure" is an apples-and-oranges relationship because they are not the same. Wireless infrastructure is much more general and can encompass fixed and mobile, institutional and residential, as well as commercial and institutional enterprise traffic and consumer traffic.

Second, nothing is better than fiber if the bandwidth required is high and the location is fixed. It has higher capacity, is more cost-effective, and is more robust and reliable than any wireless network. In addition, the technology curve, with WDM, makes it very scaleable when conduit and fiber is in place. Merely upgrading the end points gives 10 times or more increase in capacity.

Third, there are secondary drivers to FTTH. They usually revolve around video and imaging for healthcare, education and distance learning, security, and entertainment.

Fourth, wireless is better when the requirement is not fixed, both in capacity required and in location. Wireless's competitive advantage is the mobility, flexibility and convenience that being unlettered provides. It is particularly cost-effective when fixed infrastructure is lacking over long distances with relatively little fixed demand. As you point out, it is quick and cheap. Wireless is a great way to develop nascent demand, which can be supplemented by fiber as requirements grow and justify greater investment. Despite the hype, it will be quite a while before wireless is really good for video, certainly not if fiber is a realistic alternative. Very few applications can saturate a wireless network faster than streaming video.

Fifth, with respect to drivers, it depends on how broad your definition of community broadband is. Sometimes these networks are appropriately focused tightly on specific applications, such as public safety or municipal services. For broader, community-wide projects, the market assessment usually identifies many applications, and the potential to enable cross-sector collaboration that builds the application infrastructure that is so often needed for the community broadband network to deliver its full potential. This potential is fulfilled when community traffic is maximized and aggregated on the community network to insure significant revenue and cash flow.

The applications with the best payback on wireless networks are mobile field applications. Local government often has the largest number of field employees in a given geography. Providing government and public-safety employees with wireless enables them to save money (some estimates as high as 15–20 percent) and deliver better service more quickly in the field closer to citizens. This is just as true, however, for healthcare workers delivering patient-centric healthcare or field service people trying to repair customer equipment. The huge payback in mobility is in streamlining field delivery (also consumption) of products and services.

Bob Panoff, President of RPM in North Attleboro, Massachusetts, has been a major contributor to the Rhode-Island WINS wireless initiative.