Blog Post

We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?

Stay on Top of Enterprise Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

We think of our mobile phones as connecting to mobile networks, but that’s really not the case. When it comes to mobile data, our smartphones are far more reliant on Wi-Fi. Given that’s the case, why are carriers so single-mindedly focused on acquiring new licensed spectrum and building expensive new 3G and 4G networks, when they could implement more Wi-Fi and tap into other sources of unlicensed spectrum? That’s the question a new study is asking.

In a recently released report on unlicensed spectrum, wireless consultant and former Ofcom economist Richard Thanki argues that the wireless industry and its regulators have their priorities all wrong. If the idea is to build ubiquitous networks offering plentiful and cheap data, then carriers and governments should pursue the cheapest and most efficient technologies, which in most cases isn’t cellular infrastructure. That report will be one of the key topics of Center for Internet and Society conference held Wednesday at Stanford University (Our own Stacey Higginbotham will be moderating one of the panels). You can watch the live stream here.

Thanki argues that the ‘spectrum crunch’ is a misnomer. Carriers can support far more capacity if they deploy smaller cells, reusing the spectrum it already has to nth degree. What the mobile industry faces, Thanki says, is an “infrastructure crunch”: It hasn’t built out the density of cells necessary to support the demands for mobile data.

Nokia Siemens Networks’ conception of a heterogeneous network

This isn’t a new concept by any means – operators like AT&T(s t), Verizon Wireless(s vz)(s vod) and Sprint(s s) are now planning their first small cell deployments with an aim of implementing multitechnology heterogeneous networks in the future. But while their plans include Wi-Fi to varying degrees, those operators are still leaning heavily on small cells built over licensed spectrum they own and control, which to Thanki makes absolutely no sense.

“For example a cellular picocell costs from $7,500 to $15,000 whereas a much higher capacity carrier-grade Wi-Fi access point costs around $2,000,” Thanki wrote. “The cost of a Wi-Fi chipset for a consumer device is around $5, whereas 3G cellular chipsets costs around $30.

Thanki said that the insistence on licensed airwaves isn’t a function of efficiency or utility, rather it’s one of control:

Cellular operators are calling for ever more exclusive-use spectrum, in some cases up to 1,000MHz of additional bandwidth. Fulfilling these requests will lead to a substantial concentration in the ownership of the most valuable spectrum, risking both decreased competition and innovation. As part  of a balanced approach to meeting the growing demands for data, policy makers should also enable more dynamic spectrum sharing and licence-exempt access  across the spectrum.  As shown in this report, licence-exemption promotes methods of broadband delivery that are overwhelmingly more efficient in their use of spectrum than their licensed counterparts. In addition, the licence-exempt ecosystem has been notable for creating contestable and competitive markets, characterised by disruptive innovation.

Standards like Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and emerging “super Wi-Fi” technologies can not only support more capacity at a much lower cost, they will be key to connecting rural and underserved areas as well as creating the Internet of Things, in which not just our phones, tablets and laptops are connected but also our homes, cars and appliances. The high costs of mobile data carriage and cellular hardware have already made Wi-Fi a much preferable alternative to mobile broadband, according to Thanki:

Another way of understanding the scale of global Wi-Fi deployments is to compare the aggregate capacity of Wi-Fi networks to global cellular networks. The aggregate capacity of the world’s Wi-Fi networks can be conservatively estimated to be well over 16,500 terabits per second. In comparison, the total capacity of the world’s 3G and 4G radio networks is probably no more 600 terabits per second.

Unlicensed spectrum is already the way the world is heading. Instead of trying to overcome their dependence on Wi-Fi and other unlicensed technologies, Thanki said, carriers and regulators need to embrace them. In his report he doesn’t say that the industry should do away with spectrum ownership completely, but he does recommend that regulators quash their bias for carrier-owned frequencies and strike a balance between licensed and unlicensed. Specifically Thanki recommends that regulators throw open TV white spaces spectrum for unlicensed use, which would trigger the next wave of wireless broadband innovation.

27 Responses to “We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?”

  1. Tsahi Levent-Levi


    Wi-Fi and LTE must go hand-in-hand. Putting the focus only on LTE or only in Wi-Fi won’t help carriers – they need to do both, and I think the smart ones actually do.
    Since Wi-Fi isn’t managed in most cases, then it has no SLA, and no single throat to choke when things go wrong. If it will ever get the transparency that cellular data has these days, then it might stand a chance.
    I wrote about it on the Amdocs Voices blog:

  2. Matt Cauble

    Thanks for providing this article! We are working to be a WISP for m2m comm over ‘Super Wi-fi’. Let me know if you are interested in learning more!

  3. I agree triple the number of cell triple the number of throughput 10 Mhz can produce, carriers should move to 2~3Ghz spectrum for data. but WiFi has 5msec latency in theory and more in practice, that is much higher than 1msec LTE; not mention the interference, security, distance……

  4. Chris Lyons

    I think that we need to get past single minded thinking. The licensed networks will still be king with devices that are delivered with “always-on” connectivity, for example, if your grandmother receives a home health monitoring device, she would rather it work right out of the box without the need for configuring her Wi-Fi router. A Kindle3G type model works best for this application.
    On the other hand, companies like Shaw Cable in Canada are building out Wi-Fi services because the infrastructure is so much cheaper. Shaw already has a very large high-speed network, and provides network services to homes and businesses throughout western Canada. It is a trivial exercise to install carrier grade access points at their existing customer’s locations, covering inside and outside. Shaw will pay for electricity usage. The Shaw Wi-Fi (EXO) uses WPA2-Enterprise authentication, so there are absolutely no security concerns. Configure the network settings once and you will automatically connect to their access points when in range. No one is spoofing an access point with this kind of authentication. This also solves the problem of in-store network connectivity. I often find that my cellular data drops to nothing when I am in a large super market or big box store. I don’t like to trust open access points provided for free in Safeway or McDonalds and I don’t like to have to go into my settings and hunt around for an open access point in every store that I visit. The Shaw model solves the security issues, and also the issue of hunting for a different AP every time I enter a new store.
    Emerging Wi-Fi standards like 802.11ac will deliver gigabit to Wi-Fi devices. This blows the pants off LTE for speed and expected to be ratified and adopted much more quickly than the 802.11n standard was.
    Other standards like 802.11u will allow for metro Wi-Fi providers to establish roaming agreements between their networks. Suddenly a Shaw customer may be able to roam to a Wi-Fi provider’s network in a different serving area.
    Wi-Fi isn’t a perfect solution. It will not work in all situations, but it could easily take a big bite out of the cellular data market.
    Personally, I would rather let my teenager use a metro Wi-Fi service that is provided for free on my home Internet and cable service rather than paying $60 to $100 per month for a smartphone voice and data plan.
    A company like Shaw already offers a “Digital Home Phone” service. It is a very short hop for them to introduce a SIP client for iPod Touch, tablets and smartphones to extend the existing home phone service to mobile devices on their Wi-Fi network.
    Stay tuned… it will get interesting.

  5. The article doesn’t discuss business model. In the traditional approach, no company is willing to invest billions of dollars to do a network buildout on top of (unreliable) unlicensed spectrum. There’s too much risk.

    A viable approach I see would be for cable/dsl broadband providers to piggyback this into their existing residential deployments. I.e., the cable/dsl modem in each house also has a sideband “public data” wireless service, completely separate from the internet connection provided at the residence but sharing the same wire. You bill people to use the data network thus created, and perhaps share some of that revenue with the homeowner as compensation for participating. Even more straightforward would be to sell the wireless connectivity wholesale to mobile operators like Verizon — essentially you’re providing a form of data roaming. An approach like this eliminates the biggest costs in deploying a wireless WAN network: Rights of way, power, and wired bandwidth.

  6. The more customers cell service providers convince to use wifi is good for the cell service providers on (at least) two levels. 1)Takes traffic of the cell network to allow providers to charge more for less service. 2)Provides more salable data collection off wifi networks.

  7. M Isaacson

    The cellular wireless game is really about control not inefficiency. The large carriers also need to control their spectrum over the long term to increase the value of their company and control their growth through spectrum ownership. The spectrum is their real estate. If they can own, license and profit from Wi-Fi, the industry great potential. So i would be careful what you wish for in this article in that the FCC may grant them exactly what they want and free wi-fi could become a thing of the past as it is in many third world countries around the world.

  8. Steve Ardire

    > Specifically Thanki recommends that regulators throw open TV white spaces spectrum for unlicensed use, which would trigger the next wave of wireless broadband innovation.

    Bingo and go SuperWifi !

  9. peanut

    Ummm.. the 2.4ghz and 5ghz bands wifi uses don’t have nearly the same range as Verizon s 800mhz. They use licensed spectrum because there’s no clutter or interference on licensed spectrum. Its not hard to figure out why they don’t want to rely on the overly crowded 2.4ghz for all data (2.4 being the most universally used for wifi).

    • Kevin Fitchard

      Hi Peanut,

      I agree with you. There’s a Wi-Fi war going on in my apartment building. But I also think that’s a valid argument for opening up more unlicensed bands. As for range sub-1 GHz Super Wi-Fi would be able to add breadth to complement Wi-Fi’s capacity.

  10. What happened to all the city-wide (mesh-)WiFi network activities in the US a few years back ? – for a reason … while WiFi is abundant @ home, @ office, @ Starbucks and McD (all indoor) …

  11. techman

    I think more would use the cell network if the prices where not so high, data capped, etc… the cell companies i think could make alot more money if they did away with the caps…

    at least have tier and the top tier always be unlimited with out throttling.

    more people would by the unlimited (those who could afford)

    and those who do not use it now would buy if it was low enough priced (increasing revenue to the cell companies)

    a win win for everyone

    • Kevin Fitchard

      Hi Jeff,

      I couldn’t find it posted in any officially capacity. My copy was sent directly to me. You can try searching “The Economic Significance of Licence Exempt Spectrum to the Future of the Internet”. Some documents will come up for download. I didn’t link them to because the sources were unverified.

  12. IncrediBILL

    “When it comes to mobile data, our smartphones are far more reliant on Wi-Fi. ”

    On what planet?

    I have Wifi disabled except at home on a secure network, so do my educated friends, family and wife, because it’s too dangerous with all the Wifi spoofing, sniffing and the potential man-in-the-middle attacks to risk public Wifi for anything beyond streaming a video.

    Would never use any public Wifi for doing anything serious where my passwords are involved, even with encryption.

    Not worth the risk.