Posted on

Femtocell versus Wi-Fi

Rethink Research has published an interesting article relating the new Wi-Fi voice certification to the outlook for femtocells.

The idea of the article is that voice over Wi-Fi for cell phones is competing with femtocells, and that femtocells may win out. The article distinguishes between business voice and consumer voice, saying that service providers see femtocells as “an important stalking horse for greater control of corporate customers. ” This gives a hint of why femtocells may be unattractive to businesses: many of them would rather not yield this control.

Consumer voice service is controlled by service providers. They have three options in this space: do nothing, deploy femtocells or deploy Wi-Fi. Do nothing is the obvious best choice, since neither of the other options carries a revenue upside. But poor coverage in a home discourages usage and risks cancellations of subscriptions. So in areas of poor coverage something like femtocells or UMA (voice over Wi-Fi) is attractive to service providers. For both technologies the service provider subsidizes the wireless router, but femtocells will remain more expensive than Wi-Fi routers because of their lower sales volumes, so Wi-Fi is more attractive on this count. But UMA requires phones with Wi-Fi, while femtocells will work with any phone in the service provider’s line-up, including legacy ones. So the customers’ experience of femtocells is better – they can choose or keep the phone they want and still get improved coverage at home. This benefit of femtocells clearly outweighs the marginal price advantage of Wi-Fi routers. Femtocells may help subscriber retention in another way: a Wi-Fi router is not tied to any particular cellular service provider, while a femtocell only works with the carrier that supplied it.

The situation in businesses is different. They generally prefer to control their own voice systems, which is why they have PBXs. But a substantial number of business calls are now made on cell phones, even on company premises. These calls don’t go through the PBX, so they are not least-cost-routed and they are not logged or managed by the IT department. Femtocells don’t fix these problems, but Voice over Wi-Fi does. Not service provider Voice over Wi-Fi, like UMA, but SIP-based Voice over Wi-Fi from companies like DiVitas and Agito. What about phone choice though? Won’t corporate customers be stuck with a limited choice of handsets? The answer is yes, only a limited number of phones have Wi-Fi: less than 10% of those sold in 2008. But in the category of enterprise smart phones, like the Nokia Eseries and Blackberries, the attach rate of Wi-Fi will soon be close to 100%.

So femtocells are a good way for service providers to remedy churn caused by poor residential coverage for consumers, but Wi-Fi may be the better option for businesses that want to regain control over their voice traffic.

Posted on

More on Ozmo

A while back I wrote about Ozmo, a company that plans to replace Bluetooth with Wi-Fi in certain applications.

Ozmo’s pitch is that their special version of Wi-Fi is faster, less prone to interference, cheaper and more power efficient than Bluetooth. Though slow for Wi-Fi, Ozmo’s data rate of 9 Mbps is way better than the 3 Mbps of Bluetooth 2.1 plus EDR. Concerning interference, Bluetooth transmissions are in the same 2.4 GHz frequency range as Wi-Fi, so careful engineering is always needed for coexistence; but coexistence is not an issue for Ozmo, because it is a flavor of Wi-Fi. The lower-cost part of the story is that while an Ozmo chip for a peripheral is roughly the same price as a Bluetooth chip, it saves the need for a Bluetooth chip in the host device. So if Ozmo’s claims of double the battery life of Bluetooth turn out to be valid when tested, the pitch holds water.

Bluetooth is unshakably incumbent in the billion-unit-per-year mobile phone market; most phones are now shipping with Bluetooth. But in laptops the Bluetooth attach rate is still well under 50%, while the Wi-Fi attach rate is close to 100%. So it makes sense that Ozmo is focusing initially on the computer market. Ozmo enables a laptop to use wireless peripherals like mice, keyboards, game controllers and headsets with a software modification to the Wi-Fi rather than having to include a USB wireless receiver in the package.

Ozmo is also focusing on the Consumer Electronics market, where Wi-Fi is gaining traction, and where the ability to support wireless remotes and similar peripherals can be added ‘free of charge’ to a device that already has Wi-Fi.

Since this is a compelling proposition, OEMs in these markets are likely to fall into line relatively easily, and indeed Ozmo has already secured the support of the biggest fish in the PC pond, Intel.

It may be a harder sell to the peripheral manufacturers. For them it’s not just a software upgrade. It is a new product line, one that depends on a single source for a key component and that sells into a currently non-existent base of host devices.

On the other hand, the peripheral device manufacturers may not be oposed to a new product line – they already have a plethora of products, using a variety of connectivity technologies including proprietary ones. Adding another one may not be too arduous, especially if it removes the need for a USB part. Ozmo could overcome the non-existent base issue by supplying, or convincing Intel and the other PC Wi-Fi chip vendors to supply, upgraded drivers for legacy Wi-Fi devices.

Posted on

Wi-Fi certification for voice devices

In news that is huge for VoWi-Fi, the Wi-Fi Alliance announced on June 30th a new certification program, “Voice-Personal.” Eight devices have already been certified under this program, including enterprise access points from Cisco and Meru, a residential access point from Broadcom, and client adapters from Intel and Redpine Signals.

Why is this huge news? Well, as the press release points out, by 2011 annual shipments of cell phones with Wi-Fi will be running at roughly 300 million units. The Wi-Fi in these phones will be used for Internet browsing, for syncing photos and music with PCs, and for cheap or free voice calls.

The certification requirements for Voice-Personal are not aggressive: only four simultaneous voice calls in the presence of data traffic, with a latency of less than 50 milliseconds and a maximum jitter of less than 50 milliseconds. These numbers will produce an acceptable call under most conditions, but a network round-trip delay of 300 ms is generally considered to approach the limit of acceptability, and with a Wi-Fi hop at each end running at the limit of these specifications there would be no room in the latency budget for any additional delays in the voice path. The packet loss requirement, 1% with no burst losses, is a very good number considering that modern voice codecs from companies like GIPS can yield excellent sound quality in the presence of much higher packet loss. This number is hard to achieve in the real world, as phones encounter microwave ovens, move through spots of poor coverage and transition between access points.

Since this certification is termed “Voice-Personal,” four active calls per access point is acceptable; a residence is unlikely to need more than that. Three of the four access points submitted for this certification are enterprise access points. They should be able to handle many more calls, and probably can. The Wi-Fi Alliance is planning a “Voice-Enterprise” certification for 2009.

There are several things that are good about this certification. First, the WFA has seen fit to highlight voice as a primary use for Wi-Fi, and has set a performance baseline. Second, this certification requires some other certifications as well, like WMM power save and WMM QoS. So far in 2008, of 99 residential access points certified only 6 support WMM power save, and of 52 enterprise access points only 13 support WMM power save. One of the biggest criticisms of Wi-Fi in handsets is that it draws too much power. WMM power save yields radical improvements in battery life – better than doubling talk time and increasing standby time by over 30%, according to numbers in the WFA promotional materials.

Posted on

Making lemons into lemonade

Phybridge is a Canadian startup (founded May 2007) aiming to solve some of the problems of VoIP implementation. Its premise is that in many cases, an organization seeking to move from a traditional TDM phone network to a VoIP network does not have an Ethernet LAN capable of supporting VoIP. This inadequacy may result from insufficient capacity, QoS or reliability.

The conventional solution in these cases is to upgrade the Ethernet network while junking the old phone wiring.

Phybridge proposes to leave the Ethernet network alone, and to reuse the old phone wiring to implement a parallel data network, using Ethernet over a flavor of DSL. This is similar to HomePNA, but aimed at business use rather than consumer, and done point-to-point rather than into a shared medium.

The solution consists of two parts: a central box called “Uniphyer” has 24 ports connected to the legacy phone wiring. At the other end of each cable run is a “phy adapter” the size of a pack of cigarettes that you plug into the legacy phone jack, and into which you plug your Ethernet VoIP phone.

The Uniphyer provides power over the same copper pair as the data, so you can plug power-over-Ethernet phones into the client adapters.

The data rate is 3 megabits per second upstream, 30 down. This is slow for a data network, but certainly adequate for VoIP, so an organization that is replacing a conventional PBX phone system with a VoIP one may find Phybridge a cost effective solution if their existing data network isn’t up to VoIP, and the required improvements are extensive.

The Uniphyer is scheduled to launch at the end of September.

Posted on

Is 802.11n too power-hungry for handsets?

Most 802.11n access points draw more power than Power over Ethernet (PoE) can supply, while 802.11a/b/g access points work comfortably with PoE. So 802.11n must be more power consumptive than 11g, right?

The answer is yes, but when you delve into the reasons why you may discover that an 802.11n handset can still have comparable, or better battery life than an 802.11g one.

The big power drain for 802.11n is MIMO, for two reasons. First, MIMO demands a separate radio transmitter for each of its channels. In the Farpoint white paper linked above, testing was done with six transmitters – 3 at 2.4 GHz, 3 at 5GHz. The 11n specification allows up to 4 MIMO channels, and Wi-Fi certification requires at least two. Each of these transmitters burns as much power as the single (or dual in the case of an a/g AP) transmitter in an 11a or 11g access point. A second increase in power demand by 11n comes from the increased processing load not just because of the increased number of channels, and not just because of the increased data throughput, but also because each individual MIMO stream places a heavier processing load than a single 11a or 11g stream.

But the Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) has waived the MIMO requirements for handsets, allowing 802.11n certification for single-radio devices. So none of these increases in power dissipation needs to apply to handsets.

Single-channel 802.11n still requires more processing than single channel 802.11g, because of advanced features like STBC and LDPC, but STBC and LDPC are amenable to hardware implementation (which reduces their power demand), and these and other advanced features of 802.11n improve “rate at range,” meaning that the transmitter is active for shorter times, and can transmit at lower power.

The net is that Redpine Signals, a pioneer of 11n for handsets, claims that a handset using the Redpine 11n chip actually has better battery life than it would with a competitor’s 11g chip.

Wi-Fi state of the art is a rapidly moving target, and over the past 12 months there have been startling improvements in power efficiency. I have written here about the new Atheros chip, for example. So if the latest 11g handset chips are more power efficient than 11n competitors, it is more a function of their recency than their adherence to 11g.

The benefit of 5 GHz operation is compelling for Voice over Wi-Fi, and it will be hard for handset vendors to promote the decade-old 802.11a over 802.11n. 802.11n is already the Wi-Fi flavor of choice for access points and PC clients, and it soon will be for handsets, too. How soon? It’s hard to say. So far the only chip vendors to announce 11n for handsets are TI, Redpine Signals and Conexant, and Conexant exited the handset Wi-Fi business just two months after it announced this chip. No phone is yet shipping with 802.11n although TI said it was sampling its WiLink 6.0 with 11n in February 2007. The Wi-Fi alliance has not yet published its Handheld profile for 802.11n certification. On the other hand, ABI research in September 2006 predicted that the majority of the 300 million Wi-Fi enabled handsets to ship in 2011 will support 802.11n.

If 802.11n handset shipments fall short of this prediction, it won’t be because of battery life considerations.

Posted on

Wi-Fi Bluetooth collision

I already wrote about how Bluetooth is specifying Wi-Fi for its high bandwidth transport in a future version. Now there’s another interesting Bluetooth/Wi-Fi juxtaposition.

You may remember that last year Bluetooth subsumed WiBree as an ultra low power consumption variant. Now something analogous is happening in Wi-Fi, where a startup called Ozmo has come up with an ultra low power variation of Wi-Fi, which it is pitching as a substitute for Bluetooth.

Ozmo is not the first to propose this. Nanoradio claims that its implementation of Wi-Fi consumes way less power than Bluetooth, and they have a reference design for a Wi-Fi headset to demo the concept. Atheros has also recently announced a low-power Wi-Fi chip – so low that they claim “near zero” stand-by power consumption.

So Ozmo may not be so radical in its low-power claims, but it also claims low-cost. The Ozmo chip is priced the same as Bluetooth chips, which Ozmo estimates are between 1/4 and 1/3 the cost of Wi-Fi chips.

The Atheros and Nanoradio chips are full implementations of Wi-Fi; Ozmo’s is, according to this EETimes article, a “stripped down” version. This may mean that it is a non-standard version, in which case it would need a new certification program from the Wi-Fi Alliance – not a major obstacle, I presume, in view of Intel’s strong support for Ozmo.

So why would anybody want a version of Wi-Fi to substitute for Bluetooth, when we already have Bluetooth? Well, while most phones come with Bluetooth these days, in the PC world Wi-Fi is far more common than Bluetooth. So for peripherals designed exclusively for PCs, like mice and keyboards, Wi-Fi makes more sense than Bluetooth simply on the grounds of out-of-the-box compatibility. Add the technical benefits, like coexistence (Bluetooth and Wi-Fi tend to step on each others’ toes) and superior performance (Ozmo claims double the battery life in similar applications to Bluetooth), and it seems like a no-brainer.

The factors that could cause it to fail are ease of use and price. The setup of the peripherals with the PC must be completely automatic, and the operation of the devices must be flawless. Peripheral manufacturers must produce Wi-Fi versions of all their wireless products, and price them the same as their Bluetooth versions. The Wi-Fi drivers on the PC side will have to be modified in order to permit the PC Wi-Fi to communicate simultaneously with access points and peripherals. This is being done anyway by Intel, in a project called “Cliffside.”

All these impediments are mitigated considerably by Intel’s involvement. Intel makes most of the Wi-Fi chips in PCs, and presumably these chips will support the Ozmo products. With this assurance, peripheral manufacturers will feel comfortable going ahead with Ozmo-powered products.

Posted on

Agito and Cisco Motion

Agito Networks was in the news recently as a part of Cisco’s Motion announcement. I have mentioned Agito a couple of times before in this blog. Like DiVitas it offers PBX-agnostic enterprise-based fixed-mobile convergence.

One of Agito’s unique technical claims is that it employs location based technology as one of the factors to determine the handover between Wi-Fi and Cellular (and vice versa).

The RoamAnywhere Mobility Router adds the element of location awareness to solve the challenging problem of routing between multiple networks.

From the Agito website

The Mobile Intelligent Roaming component of Cisco’s new Mobility Services Engine (MSE) also uses location as one of the factors (the other are signal strength and signal quality) to determine when to hand off between networks. This incorporation of location awareness into the MSE’s handover recommendation appears to weaken Agito’s claim to uniqueness in this respect, so why is Agito so enthusiastic about the MSE?

The MSE boils down an assortment of metrics related to handover decision-making to a simple binary message – link-up or link-down – which it sends to a third party eFMC controller like the Agito RoamAnywhere Mobility Router. The message is a recommendation, not a command, but since the MSE sends just this binary event, rather than any of the metrics that go into it, Cisco seems to be claiming responsibility for the decision about when to hand over.

Rather than simply obeying the link-up or link-down event by changing networks, the Agito mobility router takes these events as triggers to run its own handover-decision algorithm, using metrics gathered by the handset. This makes sense for several reasons. First, the Agito location determination mechanism is more precise for this particular application, since it knows when it is going through a doorway, whereas the Cisco location mechanism has a more general idea about the perimeter of the building. Second, the entire Agito handover-decision algorithm has to be maintained regardless of how good the MSE is at making the decision, because in many places there is no MSE (at home, in public areas, in buildings with non-Cisco networks and in buildings with Cisco networks lacking an MSE).

So Agito views the information from the MSE as a mere additional factor for its handover decision-making, rather than a substitute. On the other hand, Cisco’s marketing program around the MSE is a huge benefit to Agito.

Even though this part of the MSE will not be released until later this year, Agito’s Mobility Router works fine without it; the Cisco Motion announcement has led to a burst of interest in Agito from Cisco’s channel partners. According to Cisco, it has 65% share of enterprise Wi-Fi infrastructure, so Pej Roshan, Agito’s V.P. of marketing, anticipates that the relationship will “slingshot us to the next level of sales and customers.”

Posted on

802.11n update

There’s some FUD around 802.11n. A comment on this blog wonders how long it will be before it is ratified, and calls it a “pipe dream.”

So I was pleased to hear an aside from a Cisco executive in the webinar about the new Cisco Mobility vision. A participant asked Brett Galloway if delays in the ratification of 802.11n are holding back deployment. He responded:

We don’t see it. Technology adoption is a cycle. Late adopters are more conservative. Large numbers of 11n clients are shipping. The driver is Wi-Fi Alliance Draft N certification. There is comprehensive agreement around the ecosystem for interoperability testing using the WFA testbed. Cisco announced recently that it had shipped 50,000 11n access points.

The critical point here is that a final 802.11n specification is not needed for successful deployment. The main thing you want from a Wi-Fi device is that it is interoperable with all the others, and that’s what the Wi-Fi Alliance Draft N certification delivers – at least to the same extent that 11g devices are interoperable.

While 50,000 is a trivial number in the context of Wi-Fi access points, remember this is just enterprise-grade APs, and doesn’t include anything from Cisco’s Linksys division. When the litigation goes away and the final specification is published, all the access points out there are likely to be upgradable with a download. So go ahead and enjoy the benefits of 11n like so many other people are doing.

Posted on

Intel returns to the smartphone business in late 2009

The Intel Atom is aimed at Internet tablets, Mobile Internet Devices and Ultra-mobile PCs (or whatever the nom de jour is), but not at phones. I don’t think Intel has formally announced its return to the phone processor business yet, but Paul Otellini has been talking about it for a while now, so it seems overdue to make it official. That’s what the Financial Times did today with the headline “Intel to re-enter mobile market.” Otellini said the same thing to the New York Times on Sunday as well. Of course it has been expected ever since the first Atom announcement, and it may not really qualify as news, but here it is: “A second generation version of the chip, expected in late 2009, will be aimed at smart phones.”

As you know, the Atom is Intel’s prospective ARM-killer, but Intel will have some very heavy sledding to do to achieve this goal. The first obstacle is size and complexity. The Intel Architecture instruction set is much more complicated than the ARM, with decades of legacy dross gunking it up. The core proposition of IA for handsets is that IA is compatible with all the PC software and websites out there, so none of the legacy stuff can be left out. Intel has two factors working in its favor for this issue: first, a lot of the little-used functionality of IA can be implemented in microcode, which takes minimal die space. Second, Intel leads the world in process technology, and as it moves to the 32 nm and below nodes, vast numbers of transistors can be fitted into tiny chips. This shrinkage, and advances in power management technology, may enable the next generation of Atom to get into the same ballpark as ARM for battery life.

The second obstacle is incumbency. There are vastly more ARM processors out running in the world than there are Intel Architecture processors. The ARM is the processor used by effectively all phones and smart phones, and there are even more ARMs in other embedded applications. While Intel can point to a huge independent software developer community for IA, with a rich array of third party developer support, so can ARM for its architecture. And it’s not clear that the Atom will have a significant performance advantage over the ARM. ARM is not standing still on its architecture, delivering faster, lower power chips in step with Moore’s law just like Intel.

The incumbency issue also has a political aspect. Handset manufacturers are disinclined to hand Intel the kind of architectural franchise that it has in the PC world, so the Atom will have to have a compelling, essential advantage over the ARM in order to displace it in any but niche applications. Intel hopes that “the real Internet” is that advantage, but the iPhone has demonstrated that the real Internet can run very nicely on an ARM-based phone. In any case, within three years more smart phones will be shipping than PCs, and the other handset manufacturers will probably have caught up with Apple on the browser front, so it is possible that more Internet browsing will be being done with ARMs than IA chips.

The third obstacle is business model. To satisfy the stock market, Intel requires aggregate gross margins around 60%. This will be very tough to achieve in the mass-market for handset processors, because the margins on competing ARMs are much lower.

Good background on the Atom can be found in this EETimes article, this Beyond3d article, and this one by my colleague Linley Gwenapp.

Posted on

Cisco’s Motion Announcement

Cisco’s Motion announcement on May 28th was huge for enterprise mobility. It defined some new terms which we will be hearing a lot: “Cisco Motion,” “Mobility Services Architecture” and “Mobility Services Engine.” Cisco Motion is the name of the “vision.” The Mobility Services Engine 3350 is a $20,000 appliance that embodies the Mobility Services Architecture, which is a part of Cisco’s Service Oriented Network Architecture.

Cisco has published a lot of useful information about these new products. A good place to start is the launch webinar, which includes an informative Powerpoint presentation. The Mobility Services Architecture is described in a white paper. There are two press releases: a conventional press release consisting of written words, and a “social media release” consisting of links to YouTube clips and podcasts.

What we’re doing here is abstracting the network control element of the architecture and the services and application integration piece. This reflects what we have been talking about for the last 2 plus years around the Services Oriented Network Architecture. It’s about how we can drive new capabilities into the network, that can be married up with a host of different applications and turned into a solution for our customers. It’s not just applications running over the network. Increasingly with this architecture, it is about applications running “with” the network.

Ben Gibson, Senior Director Mobility Solutions, Cisco Systems

Cisco describes the MSE as a “platform for partnering,” the idea being that it exposes network-level information through an open application programming interface (API) to applications delivered by independent software vendors (ISVs).

Adding wirelessness to the IP world generates network-layer information that can be useful to applications, notably information about the location of known devices, and the intrusion of unknown devices. The MSE orders that information and presents it through the API.

Cisco Motion also addresses some downsides of mobility. Adding mobility to the IT world brings a lot of new headaches:

  • There are multiple network types (currently cellular and Wi-Fi, later WiMAX)
  • There is a profusion of new device types (currently smart phones) which must be managed and tracked
  • There is a wave of innovation in consumer applications. Employees are demanding these applications in the enterprise environment.
  • Mobility also complicates compliance with data confidentiality regulations like PCI and HIPAA.

So far Cisco has identified four categories of application that can run on the MSE: Context-Aware applications, Wireless Intrusion Prevention Systems, Client Management and Intelligent Roaming.

Context Aware Applications
“Context Aware applications” seems to be Cisco’s term for applications that do asset tracking. Cisco is partnering with ISVs in both horizontal and vertical markets. These ISVs are OAT, Intellidot, Aeroscout, Pango/Innerwireless and Airetrak. The Context-Aware software is scheduled to ship in June 2008.

Adaptive Wireless Intrusion Prevention Systems

Overlay wireless intrusion prevention systems add devices to monitor wireless traffic looking for rogue access points and clients. The innovation here appears to be that the MSE exposes information from the access points and wireless controllers that eliminates the need for these overlay devices. IPS software running on the MSE can substitute for the overlay IPS, while yielding equivalent depth of reporting and features. A further benefit of running the IPS over the MSE API is that the same software will be able to handle future wireless networks in addition to Wi-Fi. The Adaptive WIPS software is scheduled to ship in the second half of 2008.

Mobile Intelligent Roaming

This is enterprise Fixed-Mobile Convergence. The MSE isn’t a mobility controller; it issues an event up through the API when it determines that the Wi-Fi network needs to hand the call off to the cellular network. This event is handled by mobility controller software from an ISV. Cisco’s launch partners for this are Nokia for phones, and Agito on the mobility controller side. The Mobile Intelligent Roaming software is scheduled to ship in the second half of 2008.

Secure Client Manager

This works with Cisco’s 802.1X and CCX products. Cisco estimates that 80% of IT’s wireless and mobility effort goes to client troubleshooting and security provisioning. The Secure Client Manager will help mitigate this problem for the imminent wave of mobile devices. The Secure Client Manager is scheduled to ship in the first half of 2009.

Unified Wireless Network Software

Cisco Motion requires a new software load for the access points and WLAN controllers: the Cisco Unified Wireless Network Software Release 5.1, which shipped in May 2008.