The Future

It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

This chapter completes our picture on practical how to deploy a WiFi infrastructure. In this chapter, we’ll get out a crystal ball and look at where things are heading.

Technology will likely never stop improving. Data rates of 2Mbps or even 11Mbps can be considered “slow” for wireless LAN applications. Higher ISM data rates 22Mbps such as Texas Instrument ACX100 chipset cards seems to be promising. Others, such as, Intersil, may look at a much higher data rates 54Mbps and up using exotic modulation scheme like Orthogonal Frequency Division Modulation (OFDM).

Higher frequency 5GHz band seems to be a more promising platform for deploying higher speed 54Mbps and up WiFi infrastructure. WiFi equipment in this band incorporates two additional features into the IEEE 802.11a standard (WiFi standard), namely, dynamic channel selection and transmit power control. Dynamic channel selection improves the ability to coexist with other user of the 5GHz bands as devices may select channels based on real-time feedback. Transmit power control is used in selecting lower-powered channel for short-range applications or higher-powered channel for long-range applications.

Although, 5GHz band deployment has not been reviewed in this book. The deployment method is fairly similar to the 2.4GHz band. Quite a bit of 5GHz implementation has been done in the developing countries. Some use it as the long-haul backbone infrastructure. In dense area, some use 5GHz WiFi infrastructure for last mile access infrastructure.

As we all know, all of these advancement in technology significantly compensate by the lower / cheaper equipment cost. It is not surprising to see high deployment rate of WiFi infrastructure. At the end of 2003, the rate of WiFi deployment in Indonesia is about 200-300 nodes per month and keeps increasing in coming months.

Such rapid WiFi deployment infrastructure will likely to put a significant pressure on the telecommunication regulation to un-licensing WiFi band. For example, in Indonesia, an underestimate calculation shows that un-licensing WiFi band will increase from currently,

1.	One (1) million to 17.8 million WiFi based Internet users.
2.	US$120 thousand/year to US$2.4 million/year ISP tax.
3.	US$830 thousand/year to US$15 million/year VAT.
4.	US$ 2.1 million to US$ 71 million investment tax.
5.	50.000 units to 2 million unit computers.
6.	5.000 units to 130.000 units ISM band equipment.
7.	Such increase in ISM band equipment needs will justify an industrial migration from antenna and tower manufacturing to ISM band equipment manufacturing at US$ 4.5 million value.

Not to mention spin off effect on many economical benefit to the country as more rapid information flow experiences by the country.

Low cost with user-friendly interface characterized modern ICT gears. Such ICT equipments enable small- and medium-sized enterprises even community to build their own interconnected network. It leads to bottom-up, community-based ICT/telecommunication infrastructure that from the people; by the people; and for the people. Such infrastructure may challenge the regulatory framework in some countries.

A community based ICT infrastructure has nothing to do with the technological superiority of the equipment. It relies heavily on community education process to sustain its self-finance deployment. Ability to generate and efficiently distribute local knowledge in local language would be the most strategic key.

From regulatory point of view, WSIS commitment in connecting half of the country population by 2015 is really pushing alternative low cost solution in increasing the country’s Internet penetration. WiFi is considered as one of the major infrastructure to increase the country’s Internet penetration.

Thus, it is of interest of many stakeholders to see an un-licensed WiFi band to increase Internet penetration, which in turn, improving country’s economy.

The Indonesian experiences, there are basically two (2) major stumbling blocks in un-licensing the existing ISM band, namely,

1.	Migration path for the existing primary service Microwave links.
2.	Understanding Interference Measure.

Migrating thousands of existing microwave links in 2.4 GHz and 5.8GHz is not an easy task. It would costs a lot of money, requires careful frequency planning, as well as technology / equipment selection to survive. However, money-wise, it can be compensated from the investment tax generated by WiFi deployment.

Interference is one of the biggest issues raised by the regulator, as WiFi infrastructure is basically an un-coordinate infrastructure. The current regulatory framework has a very limited interference measure by limiting the Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP). A more complex interference measure, such as, requirement of an appropriate antenna polarization, antenna radiation pattern, antenna construction, frequency re-use, cell design would likely minimize WiFi interference. One may question, should such local matters handled by central / federal government? Or should local community to solve it?

I do hope we can settle these issues to see an un-licensed WiFi band that will increase the Internet penetration.