Blurring the lines

ONCE UPON A TIME, telling the difference between the LAN and the WAN was simple: The LAN was about internal connections, and the WAN was about external communications. But that has recently started to change, and wireless networking is part of the reason why. Some of the first blurrings of the LAN/WAN distinction can be seen in various free wireless networking installations, most notably the San Francisco “cloud,” which aims to cover the Presidio National Park and, ultimately, the entire city. A number of these setups have been created by generous individuals willing to share their bandwidth with anyone within range of their access points; others are subsidized by coffee shop chains and the like that are hoping their networks will attract customers.

It’s obvious that the 802.11 family is all about wireless LAN standards, and it’s easy to claim that talk of any merger between the LAN and the WAN is nonsense. From a conceptual basis, the naysayers are right. But many of the comfortable definitions that the industry has created over the last 10 to 20 years are less and less relevant to what’s happening in the field. Everyone knows that LANs use Ethernet, WANs use frame relay, and that’s how things will be, world without end.

Bending boundaries

But not so fast — Ethernet isn’t just a LAN protocol anymore. It’s turning up in metropolitan and larger networks as vendors take advantage of increasingly faster hardware that reduces the challenges of implementing Ethernet over extreme distances. Ultimately, end-to-end Ethernet makes sense for simplifying traffic flow and addressing basic management issues. Because our view of networking is about accessibility, around-the-world Ethernet can’t happen soon enough.

Consider also the practical effect of how companies and individuals are deploying wireless. The development of free wireless clouds is happening with what amounts to slow, short-range gear based on the 802.11b standard. As 802.11a-and 802.11g-based hardware becomes more available this year and next, the reach — and use — of these “freenets” will expand dramatically. But how quickly will so many people surfing a free wireless wave ultimately make it impossible to surf?

Traditional broadband wireless implementations aren’t rolling over and playing dead yet. Although slightly less than a quarter of respondents to the 2002 InfoWorld Broadband Survey report using fixed wireless (16 percent) and satellite (just 6 percent) links, those numbers are expected to change dramatically by next summer, according to respondents’ 12-month projections.

Almost one in 10 respondents are using satellite broadband or expect to be using it soon, and the rate of fixed wireless use is expected to jump to 28 percent in the next year. Although this pales in comparison to the 70 percent and higher acceptance of combinations such as T1 and T3 or cable modem and DSL, it nevertheless signals that wireless broadband is filling an important need for corporate customers.

Sometimes that need arises because of geographical or topographical factors where it’s prohibitively expensive to run a wired connection for miles and miles to the nearest speck of civilization or perhaps when trenching becomes difficult in a wetland area. Maybe the desire is to escape the clutches of the local phone company when processing a large number of credit and debit card transactions on a daily basis. Whatever the motivation, the use of wireless and satellite technologies is clearly on the rise.

Wireless in flux

Arguably, the fixed wireless vendors have the most to lose from the expanding reach of 802.11 wireless networks. Much of the short-haul market will probably disappear in the next five to 10 years when 802.11g’s already impressive capacity and speed are enhanced. But there will still be a place for fixed wireless where the units of measurement are kilometers and miles. Unfortunately, according to the Broadband Survey, the most popular fixed wireless broadband implementation, MMDS (Multipoint Multichannel Distribution Services), is competing in an already crowded slice of the spectrum in the 2.4GHz neighborhood. This may be why the Broadband Survey indicates slower future growth compared to satellite broadband.

One of the survey’s most dramatic figures concerns the adoption of so-called second-generation satellite technology, which uses the satellite link in both directions, sending and receiving. Just 14 percent of those with fixed wireless and satellite broadband currently use second-generation satellite links. But that number will more than double, with another 18 respondents planning to adopt them in the next year.

There’s a theory floating around that posits that, as XML use increases, networks will have to expand their capacity. This is certainly true in the mobile wireless world, where many end-users are limited to networks that run at speeds that make conventional dial-up look speedy. But rich media and special events hit networks much harder than XML ever will. Broadband wireless, especially end-user connections, will have to improve capacity, but XML won’t be the reason why.

Because so much of the world’s population is beyond the reach of traditional wired networks, wireless and satellite technologies are and will continue to be critical to millions of businesses and consumers for years to come. Although the low end of the broadband wireless space is being eroded by improvements in wireless LAN technologies, there’s still plenty of growth ahead.

Return to our Test Center Research Report: Broadband