Still won't be enough to move everyone to wireless. We won't be able to replace more than a small fraction of our wired bandwidth with wireless anytime in the foreseeable future.
I think your statement is true only if you consider the area covered by a single tower to be fixed.
If a given volume of space can only handle so much bandwidth over the EM spectrum, it seems the logical solution would be keep the range smaller and put antennas (with wired backhaul) in more places. Similar to how wireless companies do a lot of special capacity work in large stadiums, etc. [1]
Of course, as the range decreases and the number of towers increase, the cost dynamics start to resemble the same last-mile cost problem more and more, but at least:
- you don't have right-of-way problems (presumably any company can lease EM spectrum)
- You can choose the areas install more shorter-range towers based on demand
What you're describing would increase bandwidth. It's basically the plan for 5g.
However, it still won't come close to replacing wired bandwidth. There is a limit to how low you can reduce transmission power and still get blanket coverage therefore there is a limit to how close together these towers can be without interfering with each other, and a corresponding limitation on bandwidth for a given area.
You'd need to move the towers down to something close to the range of Wi-Fi to provide enough bandwidth to come close to working. And at that range you basically have all of the exact same problems of wired internet.
>you don't have right-of-way problems (presumably any company can lease EM spectrum)
You still have significant right-of-way problems because you still need to provide the wired backhaul for these towers. Unless you want to piggyback on the existing wired infrastructure--in which case you need to pass laws to force existing providers to let you use their pipes.
Wireless internet isn't a solution to the problems we face with ISPs. It might help to provide some limited competition, but the physical limitations prevent it from replacing wired internet.
> You'd need to move the towers down to something close to the range of Wi-Fi
It's my understanding that LTE and 5G are designed to scale such that the density of cell towers matches the density of the population. Thus in rural areas you have fewer high powered tower and in urban centers you would have many low powered micro towers.
> You still have significant right-of-way problems because you still need to provide the wired backhaul for these towers.
In downtown Atlanta they have ground level LTE installations with wireless backhauls at heavily traffic intersections attached to the street lights.
>It's my understanding that LTE and 5G are designed to scale such that the density of cell towers matches the density of the population. Thus in rural areas you have fewer high powered tower and in urban centers you would have many low powered micro towers.
None of what you said is wrong, it's just not enough.
5g is still under design. It's just a specification for minimum speed, latency etc...
The most likely way to accomplish it is through small cells operating at very high frequencies (milometer wave). The problem with high frequencies is that they don't penetrate obstacles. They require direct line of sight, A canvas awning would block the signal.
For 5g to operate at the desired speeds in high density areas, you'd need them on every street corner, and you'd still need lower frequency higher powered transmitters to act as a backup in the very likely scenario that you aren't in direct line of sight of a millimeter wave tower.
In rural areas you could just use the lower frequency higher powered towers. However, the farther from the tower you get the lower the bandwidth. Combine that with the higher noise floor you get at lower frequencies, and the fact that transmitters cover a circular area and you need a large amount of overlap.
In either scenario, rural or urban there is no good way to replace wired access. Although it would be more likely in very rural areas.
In urban areas as I've already said, the tower density needs to be so high, that you lose the advantages that people are hoping will make wireless more competitive. At that density you have all the exact same problems that lead to a natural monopoly.
>In downtown Atlanta they have ground level LTE installations with wireless backhauls at heavily traffic intersections attached to the street lights.
This doesn't solve the right of way issue at all. If you've already got to the street corner, you've already solved the right of way issue.
Getting from the road to houses isn't the difficult part. Homeowners will grant you access, they want access. It's getting to
the street corner that's a problem.
