Ruckus Could Cause U-verse a Real Ruckus
Source: alanweinkrantz.typepad.com
Warning:
• Do not try this at home.
• Batteries not included.
• Demonstration as shown, performed by professional stunt car driver.
Light Reading’s Phil Harvey, has a great post entitled “Raising Ruckus with U-verse." In Phil’s piece, he talks about the idea of running U-verse in HD on a wireless network using Ruckus Wireless’ new MediaFlex 7000 gear, noting how well it actually worked.
I’m not here to challenge Phil’s technical expertise, or the notion that in theory (repeat theory) that you could do HDTV over a wireless network, not only making it more convenient for consumers, but much easier and less expensive and time consuming for the AT&T installation crew when the come to your home.
I am here, though to challenge what amounts to nothing more than pure common sense given the following issues:
1. Phil’s house is not my house. I don’t know his set-up, how far the TVs are from the set top box, what kinds of walls he has, and where his microwave oven, let alone the hair dryer in the bathroom may sit. I live in a two-story home. Maybe Phil lives in a one-story ranch-style, or a mansion. Or a condo. Or a reconverted warehouse. The key is WiFi performance varies dramatically by home. Just because it works in Phil’s home doesn’t make it scalable to every home.
2. Phil is an exception and not the rule. Just like any early adapter, it sure looks and sounds cool to do this, but AT&T (and Verizon) are after millions of customers who reliably want TV, not just a few who want to push the limits of technology.
3. While WiFi’s capability is growing, so are bandwidth demands. Telco’s like AT&T and Verizon are already been requesting 400 mbit/s of performance. You have to ask yourself, why do they need that much bandwidth? It’s probably because they are planning new applications we don’t know about yet. The reality is this: WiFi doesn’t even get us reliability to today’s requirements. It won’t for tomorrow’s either.
4. Service providers are all about service. As long as my service flows seamlessly, I never call them. And if they can’t fix or diagnose a problem over the phone (or on my wired home network) then a costly human intervenes, or even worse has to pay a service call to my home. WiFi is not ready for prime time as a backbone for IPTV services.
5. WiFi simply doesn’t deliver the kind of reliable performance telco’s like AT&T require. To achieve the kind of reliable performance telcos demand, they need 100% excess capacity. This means if you need 40 mbit/s, you gotta have have 80 mbit/s always available in throughput. Today’s WiFi can’t deliver that kind of performance. Not now and as AT&T starts to add more service offerings to my U-verse package, not in the future either.
In concluding his article, Phil begs the question: how much are consumers willing to subsidize the privilege of having a wireless network for the IPTV service?
Good question, but the wrong question.
I think the real question should be what kind of new and innovative services would consumers pay for, via their TV on a wired network? How can AT&T leverage a small-scale enterprise network in one’s home to further differentiate its product and service offering from cable and satellite providers?
All of the above aside, I personally think we are used to, and gladly accept the use and functionality of WiFi for a computer or laptop in the home.
I think we are also conditioned to having a TV wired to “something” that brings us even higher resolution images, new applications, and at a time when the cost of gas is beginning to make a permanent impact on our society, new ways to work and play from home.
