I agree with this Al. I'll attempt to clarify another aspect of the confusion in the usage of the term Broadband.
In many usages broadband implies more bandwidth than narrowband. This is the typical usage in the context of areas with well-developed traditional communications infrastructures, typically PTT and PSTN based. The other aspect of the term broadband has less to do with the amount of delivered bandwidth than the fact that it uses different infrastructure than narrowband. Narrowband typically means DS-0, analog-modems, a copper loop from a Central Office, and classic phone switch. Broadband might use any of cable modems, DSL, licensed wireless or unlicensed (e.g. 802.11). I agree that in many cases surprisingly little bandwidth can be quite useful, and at the same time in 802.11 (or similar technologies) is the cheapest way to deliver access bandwidth. Finally, we need to separately consider the access bandwidth and the backhaul bandwidth. In many small village environments 802.11 can very economically support several mbps of shared local bandwidth. The monthly expense of the backhaul connection (VSAT and ISP fee) dominates the cost and limits the available bandwidth. -- Jim On 11/6/03 11:22 AM, "Al Hammond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to reply to Peter Burgess and clear up an important > misconception. Connectivity is essential for local networking, for > access to information, for local content generation, for increasing > transparency and trust, for e-commerce--so its not the goal, but it is a > critical tool. In most developing communities, especially rural, > wireless access is the only affordable approach. Broadband wireless is > critical to development, because existing and especially next generation > technologies allow you to connect widely dispersed users with a single > piece of equipment--thus aggregating the demand and lowering the cost of > access--and to do so in unlicensed spectra, thus enabling small > entrepreneurs and non-proft groups to provide access without waiting for > large carriers (in principle--there are still regulatory barriers in > many places). WiFi networks already cover ranges of 100 miles or more, > with repeaters and tuned anntennae--in Laos, in California, in India, > and in many other places. WiMax networks will cover whole cities (30 > mile braodcast range, not point to point) or link widely scattered local > WiFi networks. (3-G cellular data networks have many similar features, > but operate only in liscensed spectra.) > > Thus the critical feature of broadband wireless is that it will lower > end user cost, by aggregating more demand. The fact that it is broadband > and allows more multimedia content (such as video mail and video > conferencing, and face/voice recognition for secure identity in > transaction, and more intuitive graphic interfaces--all important for > semi-literate users) is simply a bonus. The key fact is the superior > economics of wireless broadband from the point of the end user--these > are not luxury class items, but instead absolutely critical to spreading > connectivity access to poor communities at prices they can afford. I > think it important that the ICT for development community become aware > of these characteristics, so they don't unknowingly oppose advances that > could really make a huge difference in poor communities. ------------ This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
