Martin Courtney

The continued absence of fixed wireless broadband services based on licensed radio frequency bandwidth has created a window of opportunity for smaller providers to offer high-speed links based on licence-free 802.11b wireless LAN (WLAN) technology.

The trouble with these smaller operators is that they are charging roughly the same for 802.11b-based wireless broadband access as ADSL service providers do for cable connections that are inherently more reliable, in terms of interference, congestion and availability. Yet it seems the smaller operators' capital costs, in terms of access points and shared leased lines, are probably much lower than those of DSL service providers, which have to pay BT a fixed monthly charge per user to use the copper loop.

And while an ADSL user might see their bandwidth contended to a fraction of what they might expect, the same is true of wireless LANs. But the copper loop is fairly reliable and is unlikely to go down completely, which is not the case with 802.11b networks, whose signals can suddenly disappear and reappear.

In my house, I find that surfing the web from the kitchen table via a proxy set-up on the WLAN works perfectly one day, but there is no

signal from the access point in the next room the day after. The same is true of working in the garden, where signal strength fluctuates from strong to weak to unavailable.

Despite the problems with their services, there is a strong case for suggesting the operators of wireless broadband links are exploiting the lack of alternatives in some areas of the country to maximise profits. The laws of supply and demand dictate that the vendor sells its services at a premium when alternatives are scarce, and it seems that the broadband have-nots of rural areas are being asked to pay through the nose.

Those in rural areas who do not want to trust their WAN data to 802.11b have two choices: sign up for slow, expensive, unreliable satellite services, which are, theoretically at least, available to anybody not living in a tunnel or beneath an overhanging cliff, or wait for something to become available on the fixed wireless side that uses more efficient, licensed radio spectrum.

Herein lies the problem. Other countries have proved that the most efficient way to deliver broadband into sparsely populated regions is by using fixed wireless services based on dedicated, licensed radio frequency spectrum. But the recent government auction of licences to operate fixed wireless services in the 3.4GHz waveband were snapped up by operators who are not obliged to deliver broadband services any time soon, and who will probably use the bandwidth to connect third-generation (3G) transmission masts instead.

Whether the government will auction any more radio spectrum in the future is a moot point. For now, those without high-speed broadband can console themselves with the news that GNER rail customers are to get 802.11b access, during train journeys, with WAN links supplied via satellite broadband connections. The move follows the success of similar services in Scandinavia and apes the technical model being tested in aircraft by Lufthansa and other airlines.

If and when other travel companies decide that mobile broadband is the way forward, the UK faces the possibility of a two-tier coverage map where anybody flying over or rushing through the countryside is able to enjoy high-speed internet access on corporate account - while the poor buggers who live there are left with dial-up or ISDN.

Have your say: reply to IT Week

Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

 del.icio.us     Digg this     reddit!