Members of the ISP-Wireless list discuss the pros and cons of using paid-for (licensed) spectrum versus using free (unlicensed) spectrum to deliver broadband radio Internet service. [December 7, 2000]

On the ISP-Wireless list in November, MJR explained,

"We have two ISPs approaching us with wireless service. One uses an unlicensed band, the other licensed. I'm hearing that licensed is better because it provides a stronger signal and isn't affected much by foliage, but it sounds like unlicensed will be cheaper. Could someone explain the pros and cons of licensed vs. unlicensed service?"

DH suggested that there are too many other factors in play for a generic response to be legitimate:

"Only 25% of any wireless installation is generic. Unless you discuss the other 75% of your situation, there is no way to absolutely say which is better. That considered, licensed offers higher power levels, lower frequencies, more ability to penetrate trees and buildings' walls, and longer range. And because it's licensed, interference by competitors can be minimized. But one has to get an expensive license, which makes all costs higher.

Unlicensed service does not require a license, so the capital outlay can be much lower, and as a result, the price to the customer can be quite low. Unlicensed wireless can be established in places (small towns, rural areas) where there's no competition. However, FCC rules severely limit the range of unlicensed wireless. Amplifiers can be used, but that introduces another set of headaches and costs, and interference can pop up at any time.

So which is better? It depends on the other 75% of your situation." A number of respondents noted some basic advantages to licensed service:

[JS observed] "Licensed means just that: you are granted a license from the FCC to use a part of a protected spectrum that should provide interference-free operation. This is not always the case, but it does provide legal recourse when compared to unlicensed bands."

[GS added] "In general, unlicensed providers cannot guarantee quality of service, since the frequencies they do not own the frequencies they use."

KEM concluded with a lone argument in favor of unlicensed wireless:

"Licensed is better technically, but who will provide better customer service-a wireless monopoly, or a company that can have competitors? In my limited experience, it appears clear that smaller ISPs don't have much choice but to forge ahead with unlicensed wireless if they want to remain independent and have a chance for decent profits. Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack won't get beat by the telco stick…"

—End

 

Related article:
	[Nov. 15, 2000]	The Old Switcheroo
	[Aug. 21, 2000]	Another Kind of Unlicensed RF
	[Sep. 1, 2000]	FCC Opens Spectrum