wireless broadband drivers and their social implications

Technology in Society 25 (2003) 477–489

www.elsevier.com/locate/tehsoc

Wireless broadband drivers and their socialimplications

Bharat Rao a,�, Mihir A. Parikh b

a Department of Management, Polytechnic University, 6 Metrotech Center, Brooklyn NY 11201, USAb Department of Management Information Systems, College of Business Administration, University of

Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, CBA-320, Orlando, FL 32816-1400, USA

Abstract

Wireless local area networks now offer high-speed Internet access at numerous locations inboth public and private environments. Associated with this rapid growth, numerous socialimplications come to the fore, especially relating to practices, such as the free use and shar-ing of bandwidth. Using case-based comparative analysis, we examine three primary strate-gies involved in providing wireless broadband access. Based on this research, we discuss thefuture of Wi-Fi growth, emergent competing technologies, and the broad social implicationsof this phenomenon.Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords:Wireless broadband; Wi-Fi; Social implications; Business model

1. Introduction

Wireless broadband access to the Internet has recently witnessed explosive

growth. Much of this growth has come from the rise of wireless local area net-

works (WLANs). WLANs today are being widely used in markets such as edu-

cation, healthcare, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, government, and transporta-

tion [4,5]. Rapidly decreasing prices and home networks have fueled this growth

[1]. In 2002, the overall sales of WLAN equipment increased by 65% and to home

markets by 165% from the previous year accordingly to a study by Cahners In-

Stat/MDR [3]. In conjunction with growth at the individual (personal) and corpor-

ate levels, there have also been successful efforts in creating public WLANs. These

� Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-718-260-3617; fax: +1-928-396-6923.

E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Rao).

0160-791X/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2003.09.025

seek to provide wireless Internet access at public places such as parks, airports,hotels, cafes, libraries, malls, etc.The rapid growth of wireless LAN infrastructure has generated an interesting set

of problems for operators, users, and regulators. Traditional operators have beenforced to consider multiple business models to generate viable revenue streams.Some of these models are similar to traditional ISP-type models that marked thespread of dial-up Internet access. Committed individuals, community-based net-works, and public WLANs, on the other hand, are taking a radically differentapproach by seeking to provide free wireless access. In this paper, we explore theimpact of WLAN growth for traditional operators, end-users, community-basednetworks and public WLANs. First, we describe three different approaches to wire-less broadband rollout. Second, we discuss how a commons-based approach pre-sents a unique alternative to conventional networks. Finally, the social implicationsof a commons-based approach are presented along with an examination of futuretrends.

2. Wireless broadband access

2.1. Background

Growth in WLANs can be traced to the creation of 802.11, the IEEE technicalstandard that enabled high-speed mobile interconnectivity. After sustained effortsby the WLAN Standards Working Group, the IEEE ratified a new rate standardfor WLANs, viz. 802.11b, also known as Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) [17]. This stan-dard was certified by the Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance (WECA)[8,9,15]. The 802.11a standard—approved by the IEEE at the same time as802.11b—provides for data rates of up to 54 Mbps at 5-GHz frequency. The802.11g standard, with an even higher data rate, was recently introduced, andoperates on the same frequency as 802.11b. Of all these emerging standards,802.11b has been the most widely deployed, and our subsequent discussion on Wi-Fi will mainly refer to this standard.As pointed out earlier, a number of data points indicate the rapid growth of

wireless LANs in the US. In 2001, 8 million WLAN chipsets were sold, an increaseof 23% over the previous year; in 2002, this number grew to 11.6 million chipsetsgiving an increase of 65% [3,4]. WLANs for the home and small businesses areexpected to grow by 103% and for enterprise by 32% [10]. Fueled by significantreduction in the price of equipment and home networks, homes and small busi-nesses will account for 58% of total WLAN market by 2006. Today, a wirelessLAN network interface card (NIC) can be purchased for less than $50 and accesspoints for about $100. Prices are still drastically dropping, providing general usersaccess to WLANs.Major technology companies are also pushing innovations in the Wi-Fi areas.

Intel recently introduced Centrino technology, which integrates wireless with highprocessing power and low power consumption, to take wireless computing to the

B. Rao, M.A. Parikh / Technology in Society 25 (2003) 477–489478

next level. Intel is also planning to develop an advanced wireless technology,WiMax, which is a variant of Wi-Fi with a 31-mile linear service range and up to70 mbps transmission speed. Cisco bought a private wireless company, Linksys, for$500 million to provide seamless product offerings from large businesses to smallbusiness to home users. Boeing is planning to deliver more than 100 jets equippedwith Wi-Fi by early next year so that laptop users can access the Internet duringflights [2]. All these trends point to the growing market acceptance and investmentin new generations of Wi-Fi technology.

2.2. Private and public networks

Consumer demand for WLAN access was mainly limited to small, isolated areasin homes or workplaces until recently. A widespread and standardized infrastruc-ture was non-existent, and the range of local WLAN hot spots was limited to a fewhundred feet. However, as the demand for wireless connectivity grew, entrepre-neurial organizations began using novel methods to create organic and fast-grow-ing networks. By clustering localized WLANs, these organizations began to slowlydevelop a nation-wide wireless infrastructure. These networks enable their users toroam from one part of a city to another, and between cities with continuous wire-less access to the Internet. These organizations are trying to take WLANs to thenext level to provide an alternative to digital subscriber lines (DSL) and cablemodems for broadband Internet access for home and business users, and in somecases use existing cable and DSL infrastructure to increase the size of their net-work.Public WLANs have emerged in parallel with private WLANs in homes and offi-

ces. These public WLANs provide wireless Internet access at public places such asparks, airports, hotels, cafes, libraries, malls, convention centers, and hospitals. Itis expected that 21 million people in the US will access public WLANs in the next5 years. Currently, there are 3700 hot spot public access points in the US. They areexpected to grow to 41,000 in the next 5 years generating $3 billion in service rev-enue [10]. The seamless clustering of private and public WLANs has the potentialof creating a nationwide wireless broadband network.Two broad models are predominantly being used to create large-scale wireless

broadband networks [11,13]: (1) The top-down approach, which involves buildinga network in traditional ways in which the network operators charge fees foraccess; (2) The bottom-up approach involves loose federations of enthusiasts whooffer free access to all.While the first model is planned and involves methodic growth, it requires huge

upfront investment before users would pay for access (and you cannot sell a net-work before one is built). The second approach is organic, but requires commit-ment and involvement of enthusiasts; otherwise it could be highly fragmented toonly few or local hot spots. It is also riddled with abuses by the public, who areprone to tap into the freely available bandwidth in an ad hoc and free fashion. Inthis paper, we compare and contrast three variations of these two fundamentalapproaches. Organizations, such as Boingo, Inc., Sputnik, Inc., and NYC Wireless,

479B. Rao, M.A. Parikh / Technology in Society 25 (2003) 477–489

have come up with three distinct models to reduce the problems with the two fun-damental approaches as they race to gain market share in this exciting area.

3. Alternate approaches for wireless broadband access

In this section, we look at three organizations actively involved in wirelessbroadband network rollout. We point out the differences with respect to the under-lying technology, value proposition, and business models. These organizations werechosen to outline the degree of inherent differentiation in market position, top-down or bottom-up type of innovation, and the role of the user/customer.

3.1. A traditional WISP (wireless Internet service provider)

Boingo, Inc. (http://www.boingo.com) has employed a traditional WISP (wire-less Internet service provider) model of wireless LAN take up to rapidly expand itsgeographic coverage in the US. Using 802.11b or Wi-Fi as the underlying stan-dard, Boingo allows ultra high-speed wireless Internet access on the road and fromwork, in addition to locations like airports, hotels, etc. Freely downloadable soft-ware enables users to search for and connect to an available network in theimmediate geography. Currently, the company offers different levels of service andpricing to cater for various types of users. This includes connection capabilities forshort durations, entire connect days, and unlimited monthly use. The tariffs aretiered accordingly. Other enhancements like centralized account management, alocation directory for wireless hot spots, and customer service and support on a24–7 basis are offered as part of the service offering. Through alliance partners likeWayport, Surf and Sip, Nomadix, RoomLinx, Air2Lan, etc., extended networkcoverage is offered to Boingo customers. A number of airports provide broadbandwireless coverage through Boingo: these include Austin-Bergstrom, Dallas/Ft.Worth, San Jose, Seattle-Tacoma and Los Angeles (partial coverage). Nationwidehospitality chains like Hilton Hotels, Four Seasons, Sheraton Hotels, RamadaHotels, etc., are also providing a similar service.Boingo’s business model is similar to that offered by dial-up ISPs and cable/

DSL broadband service providers. The business model represents a classic exampleof top-down delivery of wireless access through a network of reliable service provi-ders, with top-end infrastructure and coverage. A basic driver of Boingo’s launchwas focused on building a strong and reliable brand in order to capitalize on mar-ket confusion and heterogeneity, and reduce customer confusion. Boingo hasessentially partnered with several (independent) networks and ‘‘stitched together aheterogeneous amalgamation or patchwork of different networks into a single,seamless experience for the end user’’ [7]. This type of model is inherently attractivein the long run. However, short-term organic growth is somewhat restricted by theability to grow the network through partnerships. Other models have evolved thatcapitalize on the organic network growth phenomenon, by using the end user as apartner in the network.


http://www.Warchalking.org

3.2. A software-driven initiative

Sputnik employed a software-driven initiative to provide wireless broadbandaccess. It builds its business model on the principles of open source software. Thecompany ‘‘envisions a world in which broadband wireless connectivity enablespeople to move about freely while maintaining connections to email, the Web,instant messaging, and all other Internet services’’ (http://www.sputnik.com).Sputnik provides its registered users with free access to its public Wi-Fi network,but expects to generate revenue through services, charging for a high-security cor-porate version of its software, and selling high-end Wi-Fi equipment to corporatecustomers. The company sells Sputnik Enterprise Gateway software, which pro-vides private, secure, and Wi-Fi-based WLAN for the enterprise. Using softwareprovided by Sputnik, users could even create a local network with other wiredusers to provide them with Internet access. Governed under the General PublicLicense and other open source licenses, this open-source software is continuouslyimproved by a group consisting of over 175 volunteer developers, in addition tothe company’s own developers. Additional modules for voice of WLAN, intrusiondetection and protection, and VPNs are being built by the group.Sputnik’s network is built up through a combination of (a) Sputnik’s own net-

work; and (b) public gateways created by individual users using Sputnik Gatewaysoftware. These Sputnik affiliates use the software to share their bandwidth(through DSL/cable) to the network and create a hot spot. Sputnik has over 200such hot spots in major cities such as Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, San Fran-cisco Bay Area, Seattle, and San Diego. The use of the network is currently free toall users. However, the company eventually plans to convert the network to a paid-subscriber basis to those who want to use their network but do not want tobecome an affiliate. Affiliates and volunteer developers who have contributed to thedevelopment of the software will continue to have free roaming access to the net-work. Taking a cue from Sputnik, competitors like Boingo have started supportingFree Community Access Points, where a subscriber can make the service availableto others for free. The Sputnik model creates a community-based support system,in which each member contributes money, bandwidth, or programming expertise tosustain the community.

3.3. A community-based network

NYC Wireless (http://www.nycwireless.org) is a free public network that grewout of the New York City metropolitan area, and was established with an objectiveof providing free wireless service in public spaces, including parks coffee shops,building lobbies, etc. Its approach to network building and development is cen-tered on the notion of physical communities and neighborhoods. By developingthese local level NANs (neighborhood area networks), NYC Wireless also hopes toserve as a forum for idea exchange, education, and community enrichment.Through online discussion groups, workshops and meetings, NYC Wireless pro-vides information about wireless Internet technology to individuals wishing to pro-


http://www.sputnik.com

http://www.nycwireless.org

vide their own wireless access points, as well as developers of wireless technology.Over time, they expect to build a viable service model that allows environmentslike hospitals, malls, office complexes, and gated residential communities to operatetheir own wireless LAN network.NYC Wireless has an established presence in the New York Metropolitan area,

as well as California’s Bay area and Seattle, Washington. NYC Wireless operatesjust like the Free Community Points Service offered by Boingo, except that it goesone step further, as it is free for everyone, including the Hot Spot provider. Itsmodel is almost contrary to that of Joltage. Bryant Park in Manhattan is one ofNYC Wireless well-known partners, but any real estate facility can become a part-ner for free. Their wireless broadband service is already available at parks, coffeeshops and building lobbies in numerous Manhattan locations. NYC Wireless andsimilar community networks are springing up across the US, aided mainly by gen-erous Wi-Fi users and philanthropic organizations. Other comparable examplesinclude Seattle Wireless (http://www.seattlewireless.com), NoCatNet (http://www.nocat.net), and the Personal Telco Project (http://www.personaltelco.net).These alternate networks can prove to be a major challenge to the top-down mod-els of network deployment.

3.4. Analyzing the alternatives

The three wireless broadband providers we briefly described above differ signifi-cantly from each other along three important dimensions: the nature of the net-work, the user experience, and the role of technology. We briefly describe thesedimensions and compare and contrast these providers in Table 1.In the network area, a top-down model is exemplified by Boingo, while a bot-

tom-up model is exemplified by Sputnik. Each of these network-building modeshas its advantages and disadvantages. In the top-down model, the key objectivesare reliability, stability, and predictable pricing policies and incentives. Large

Table 1

Wireless broadband business model comparisons

Boingo Sputnik NYC Wireless

Network

Network building Top-down Bottom-up Bottom-up

Type of network Commercial Semi-commercial Non-profit

Cost-effectiveness to user Low Very high High

Leadership role in network evolution Network

operator

Individuals Community leaders

and volunteers

User

User involvement Low High Very high

Role of community None High Very high

Openness to co-creation Rigid Flexible Semi-flexible

Technology

Technological robustness High Low Very low

Incentives to tech. upgrade Moderate High Low


http://www.seattlewireless.com

http://www.nocat.net

http://www.nocat.net

http://www.personaltelco.net

network operators with financial resources and an existing customer base in comp-lementary areas are ideally suited to providing top-down coverage. In the bottom-up model, innovation and experimentation are the key operating modes. As aresult, the range and quality of coverage can sometimes be fragmented. However,in areas with a significant presence of technically sophisticated users, this type ofnetwork building model can grow and flourish.Based on their financial objectives, these networks can either be commercially

driven (like Boingo) or altruistic (like NYC Wireless). In the case of NYC Wire-less, for example, the cost to the end user is zero (most cost-effective). On the otherhand, commercial networks like Boingo do have low costs associated with theiruse. Another dimension along which one can categorize the network aspect is bylooking at the locus of leadership at which the evolution of the network takes place(we refer to this as the Leadership Role in Network Evolution). In the case ofBoingo, for example, the network operator takes the lead, and is responsible foroperational challenges like network rollout, and strategic issues like technologychoice and integration. In the case of NYC Wireless, community leaders andvolunteers take the initiative in charting the broader goals of the organization.In the user area, these models differ on three major dimensions: user involve-

ment, role of community, and openness to co-creation. In the case of Boingo, theinvolvement of users in the strategic decisions and directions of the organization islow to moderate. On the other hand, it is high in the case of Sputnik and NYCWireless. Similarly, the role of community in determining policies and the code ofbehavior is high community-oriented models, such as Sputnik and NYC Wireless,and low in commercial models such as Boingo. Commercial models have very rigidpolicies toward co-creation with users. In most cases, they stem from the firm’sstrategic decisions or strong desire to maintain security and robustness of the net-work, while the other two types of models are relatively considerably more flexibleto the idea of co-creation with users.In the technology area, technological robustness and incentive to technological

upgrade are two dominating factors differentiating these models. Because commer-cial model-based networks are guided and operated through strict policies andadministrative structures, they have a relatively high level of technological robust-ness. On the other hand, community-oriented networks tend to be less robust andmore prone to technical breakdowns, often due to incompatible technologies ormisuse of the network.

4. Are wireless commons the future?

One of the interesting trends in wireless broadband deployment is the emergenceof a wireless commons, a variation of the community-based model. We believe thatthis model offers the most promise for the future, especially with the involvementof community organizations, local government, and other local sponsors who wishto enhance connectivity, and thus quality of life in a given neighborhood. NYCWireless is a classic example of a commons-based approach that attempts to pro-


vide a free public network in the NYC area. Targeted free hotspot locations cur-rently include parks coffee shops, building lobbies, etc., which will be expandedover time to include hospitals, malls, office complexes, and gated residentialcommunities operating their own wireless LAN network. This type of network hasbeen described in the literature as a self-provisioned metropolitan area network [8].NYC Wireless makes an explicit connection between network building and

development with the idea of existing physical communities and urban neighbor-hoods. The mission includes both infrastructure and educational components. Bydeveloping local level NANs (neighborhood area networks), they also offer aforum for idea exchange, education, and community enrichment, and provideinformation about wireless Internet technology to individuals wishing to providetheir own wireless access points, as well as developers of wireless technology. Thecompany is also involved in research in the development and use of the next gener-ation of mobile ad hoc wireless mesh networks. Through these activities, NYCWireless hopes to build the world’s largest free, urban, public wireless Internet net-work. Currently, NYC Wireless has an established presence in the New YorkMetropolitan area and has recently expanded to California’s Bay area and Seattle,Washington. Other comparable examples include Seattle Wireless (http://www.seattlewireless.com), NoCatNet (http://nocat.net), and the Personal Telco Project(http://www.personaltelco.net). Over 5000 such free networks are believed to beavailable worldwide, including in cities like Barcelona, Sydney, and Seoul [2].These alternate networks can prove to be a major challenge to the top-down mod-els of network deployment.Two notable public efforts at creating a virtual wireless ‘Internet cloud’ are

exemplified by Wireless Athens Georgia Zone (WAGz), in Athens, Georgia [11]and Wireless Leiden, in The Netherlands [16]. Interestingly, both are located insmall university towns. WAGz is spearheaded by the University of Georgia, alongwith participation from the local government. WAGz intends to build a wirelessInternet ‘‘cloud’’ over several blocks of downtown Athens. Nearly 30,000 studentsattend the University of Georgia, who account for almost 50% of the populationof the university town located northeast of Atlanta. Once the wireless network is inplace, anyone with the right equipment can have free Internet access. From a cur-rent coverage area of about three blocks, it is envisaged to expand to 24, which willcover almost 90% of the downtown area, which is home to numerous retail andservice establishments. In the case of WAGz, the effort is to explicitly build anopen network, which anyone can tap into. Wireless Leiden is a non-profit groupthat first installs backbone equipment and then the hot spots. The primary goal ofWireless Leiden is to foster communications among citizens; Internet connectivityis the secondary objective. By adding a small antenna to existing Internet nodes atstrategic locations within the city, Wireless Leiden has found that the operatingrange of wireless Internet coverage can be expanded significantly. By simul-taneously using multiple nodes in the network to transmit data over long distances,the city of Leiden has successfully tested this concept at distances varying from 400yards to nearly 6 miles. Due to the low cost and the ability of mobile use one couldthink of safety-enhancing applications, such as security cameras in public transport




http://nocat.net

http://www.personaltelco.net

that communicate over the wireless network. The community services and applica-

tions envisaged by Wireless Leiden include (a) current and up-to-date timetables

for various public services; (b) live broadcasts of town hall meetings over the wire-

less network with interaction capabilities; (c) description of and directions to vari-

ous retail and service providers including information on bargains and sales; and

(d) tourist information about historic buildings, etc., delivered wirelessly to hand-

held devices. In addition to the three wireless commons described above, scores of

similar efforts are underway at various locations globally. A listing of some of

these activities can be obtained from Wireless Anarchy (http://wirelessanarchy.

com).The promise of such self-provisioning networks is the same as that promised by

ubiquitous computing infrastructure—free access to computing resources, con-

nectivity, and information in a reasonably large metropolitan area. However, this

type of network building comes at a cost—fragmented coverage, unequal sharing

of bandwidth, free riders, and lower reliability and security. We will examine some

of these concerns in the final section of this paper.

5. Challenges and implications

Despite the rapid growth experienced by wireless broadband networks to date,

there are significant challenges going forward if this form of access expects to be a

dominant and reliable mode of all Internet access. In this section, we outline the

major technological and social challenges.

5.1. Bandwidth crunch

Wireless commons have two key resources: Wi-Fi hot spot and backhaul band-

width. Hot spots are location-centric, which means that one hot spot can be more

actively used than another hot spot depending on their locations. If a wireless com-

mon has a very low ratio of active to not-so-active hot spots, the active hot spots

are likely to take on unduly high burden of supporting the common. Such a bur-

den creates bandwidth crunch in the short run and makes the common unsustain-

able in the long run. Some hot spots have dedicated T1 line connections, some

have cable modem connections, and some have DSL connections to provide back-

haul bandwidth. These connections differ significantly in terms of transmission

speed. If active hot spots are connected to the Internet through slower bandwidth

connections, they can support only a limited number of users at a time and the

common experiences bandwidth crunch. However, many technology companies are

working to expand the range of hot spots and to increase the transmission speed in

Wi-Fi networks. If the current trend continues and the rate of such technological

innovations outpaces the rate at which bandwidth is used, wireless commons can

survive by continuously upgrade technologies.


http://wirelessanarchy.com

http://wirelessanarchy.com

5.2. Security consciousness

Wireless networks are inherently prone to security problems. Unguided signalstransmitted through air can be intercepted by unauthorized users. Any loopholes ina Wi-Fi network can be exploited by knowledgeable hackers, who can sneak ontonetworks and steal bandwidth and even data from private computers [2]. AlthoughWi-Fi automatically encrypts data during transmission, VPN is often added foraccess to corporate networks to add another layer of protection. Wired EquivalentPrivacy (WEP) incorporated in WLANs uses either a 40-bit or a 128-bit RC4encryption mechanism, typically implemented in the NIC’s hardware to minimizeperformance degradation [9]. Users of wireless commons should deploy appropri-ate levels of security to reduce unscrupulous use of resources by others. As moreusers use wireless commons, advance level of authentication, authorization, andencryption technologies will be needed.

5.3. Network integration

Another major challenge facing wireless commons is the ability to integratemobile and Wi-Fi networks to offer reliable and seamless data services. Currently,multiple networks and spotty Wi-Fi coverage have prevented nationwide inte-gration. However, there are signs that there might be better integration in thefuture. Transat Technologies, based in Southlake, Texas has developed a softwaresystem that lets carriers mesh advanced cellular networks with independent, localWi-Fi hot spots into a cohesive data network. The software is designed to let cellu-lar carriers offer nationwide notebook PC roaming. A traveling salesman couldpractically drive across 15 network boundaries in a day and not lose a signal [6].Transat’s software essentially allows wireless LANs to be mapped into the GSMworld and behave like a part of the cellular network. Nokia and Cisco are alsocontemplating similar approaches to network integration.

5.4. Group dynamics

Wireless commons provide a unique and organic way to build wireless broad-band infrastructure. However, a commons-based approach can be negatively affec-ted by various individual actions, which may seem completely rational from theindividual perspective, but detrimental on the group level. Increasing the numberof hot spots or the bandwidth (for example the 802.11g has a bandwidth of 54mbps) may not resolve the tragedy, as each member of a commons may still becompelled to add devices to the commons leading to its demise. On the bright side,social interaction among participants of self-provisioned networks has resulted inmany innovations. Through group and one-on-one meetings, members of such net-works have come up with creative antenna designs, new ways of weatherizingaccess points and delivering power [8,12]. One innovative technique employed isthe use of coded signs to identify the existence of hot spots. Besides employing snif-fer software tools that detect wireless signals, a simpler method is to look for codedmessages on sidewalks, walls, street corners and buildings. This phenomenon is


popularly known as war-chalking, and an astute observer navigating city streets

can soon detect a wireless hot spot. War-chalkers employ symbols to identify and

describe the hot spot in question. See Fig. 1 for typical symbols used [14]. Interest-

ingly, the phenomenon was inspired by the practice of hobos during the Great

Depression to indicate which homes were friendly. These initial and tentative signs

of creativity and promise must be translated to mainstream success if wireless

broadband networks expect to dominate in the future.

6. Conclusion

In the past year, the telecommunications and networking industry in the US has

witnessed an intriguing phenomenon. While the focus of the industry was on the

next generation of cellular wireless networks, Wi-Fi-based WLANs grew rapidly,

but unsuspectingly, to provide wireless broadband access to millions of people.

Several small, entrepreneurial organizations took advantage of this unexpected

opportunity to cluster WLANs to develop wireless broadband networks. While the

traditional, cellular technology-based wireless telecom companies are continuing to

bleed from a combination of poor business judgment and misguided telecom pol-

icy, these new wireless network organizations are expanding their operations and

network exponentially. We believe that these new wireless network organizations

need to pay close attention to a number of areas that could potentially impact their

market performance and perception. Among the five broad types of concerns

articulated in this paper include: security challenges, threat of commoditization,

Fig. 1. Common War-chalking symbols (Source: http://www.Warchalking.org) [14].


http://www.Warchalking.org

rapid change and obsolescence, innovation absorption capabilities, and technologi-cal evolution.Even as Wi-Fi gains widespread acceptance, the underlying technology is chan-

ging rapidly to provide more throughput to enable data-intense applications andmultimedia experience on wireless. Efforts for setting standards for the wirelesstechnology started in 1990, but important standards did not emerge until 1997. Theindustry first embraced the initial standard 802.11, followed by 802.11b. The802.11a standard provides for data rates of up to 54 Mbps at 5-GHz frequency,making it ideal for transmitting high-quality video signals and music. This tech-nology is also less prone to interference than Wi-Fi, which shares its 2.4-GHzbandwidth with cordless phones, baby monitors, Bluetooth network devices, andmicrowave ovens. 802.11a is currently available commercially, but it is moreexpensive and incompatible with 802.11b. The availability of multimode 802.11NIC is expected to reduce the interoperability. The 802.11g standard, which isrecently introduced, operates on the same frequency as 802.11b. It is backwardcompatible with 802.11b and prone to interference like 802.11b. However, it pro-vides much faster data speed, the same as 802.11a. This new standard is expectedto eventually replace the current generation of Wi-Fi. With these advances in theunderlying standards and their ultimate rollout, wireless broadband operators willhave to stay ahead of the curve and come up with innovative business models thattap into the long-term opportunities represented by these innovations.

References

[1] Ames S. Home-wireless boom could boost Wi-Fi. C|Net News (January 8, 2002), http://news.

com.com/2100-1033-803975.html.

[2] Business Week. Wi-Fi Means Business. BusinessWeek (April 28, 2003), 86–92.

[3] Cahner In-Stat/MDR. Attractive cost of 802.11b drove Wi-Fi shipments in 2002, (February 12,

2003), http://www.instat.com/press.asp?ID=541&sku=IN020181LN, accessed March 13.

[4] Durand R, Schwartz J. Single wireless standard needed. Communications News 2000;38(7):14–5.

[5] Edwards M. Mobile internet users revitalize wireless LANs. Communications News 2001;38(4):

84–5.

[6] Kanellos M. An Answer to Wi-Fi’s Discontents. December 11, 2002, CNET News, URL: http://

news.com.com/2010-1071-976822.html, last accessed April 22, 2003.

[7] Lafferty M. Alternative broadband technologies, CED, Cahners Business Information (April 1,

2002), 40.

[8] McDonald D. Social issues in self-provisioned metropolitan area networks. McDonald, Work-

shop Paper, Mobile Ad-Hoc Collaboration, ACM 2002 Conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems. 2002.

[9] Molta D. WLAN security on the rise. Network Computing 2002;3(3):86–9.

[10] Paolini M, Pow R. Public wireless LAN access: US market forecasts 2002–2007 analyses. (February

6 2002), http://www.analysys.com/ (News).

[11] Schamp S. The WAGz story: how the wireless Athens Georgia zone came to be, New Media Insti-

tute, University of Georgia, (2003), URL: http://www.nmi.uga.edu/research/wagzstory.asp, last

accessed April 23, 2003.

[12] Sproull L, Kiesler S. Connections: new ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press; 1991.


[13] The Economist Making Wi-Fi Pay, The Economist, April 4, 2002, http://economist.com/business/

PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1067140, accessed April 29, 2003.

[14] Warchalking.org. URL: www.warchalking.org, Last accessed: April 22, 2003.

[15] WECA. WECA website, wireless ethernet compatibility alliance, http://www.wirelessethernet.org,

accessed April 29, 2003.

[16] Wireless Leiden. Wireless Leiden homepage, URL: http://www.wirelessleiden.nl, Last accessed

April 29, 2003.

[17] Yen DC, Chou DC. Wireless communication: the next wave of internet technology. Technology in

Society 2001;23(2):217–26.

Bharat Rao is an Associate Professor of Management and an Othmer Faculty Fellow at Polytechnic

University. Dr. Rao’s research has examined the impact of information and communications technolo-

gies on multiple industries including retailing, logistics and distribution, supply chain management, wire-

less and broadband innovation, financial services, entertainment and media. His current research focuses

on the diffusion of emerging technologies, business model evolution, the integration of multiple technol-

ogies for improving business effectiveness, and global innovation strategy. His research has been pub-

lished in the International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Communications of the ACM, Journal of

Computer Mediated Communications, EM-Electronic Markets, Journal of Media Management, Tech-

nology in Society, International Business Review, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and in

numerous conference proceedings and book chapters. He is also the author of business case studies pub-

lished by Harvard Business School, the Institute for Technology and Enterprise, and the European Case

Clearing House. Dr. Rao earned a PhD in Marketing and Strategic Management from The University

of Georgia, and received a bachelor’s degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from the National

Institute of Technology in Calicut, India. Prior to joining Polytechnic, he was a post-doctoral Research

Associate at Harvard Business School.

Mihir A. Parikh is an Assistant Professor in the MIS Department at University of Central Florida. As

an active researcher, he has published over 25 refereed papers in various journals, such as Decision Sci-

ences, Decision Support Systems, Communications of the AIS, International Journal of Electronic Com-

merce, and Engineering Management Journal, and in the proceedings of prestigious national and

international conferences. He has also been invited to present his research at various forums and uni-

versities in the USA, UK, Denmark, Greece, India, Israel, and Taiwan. Recently, he was instrumental in

designing and developing a cross-disciplinary Doctoral Program in Technology Management at Poly-

technic University. For over 8 years, he has developed and taught degree courses at the executive,

graduate, and undergraduate levels and offered educational seminars to executives in the USA and

Israel, in the areas of Management Information Systems, eBusiness, Data Communications and Telecom

Technology Management, and IT-enabled Global Innovations and Strategy.


wireless broadband drivers and their social implications

Documents