Commenting on article found at:  www.wirelessweek.com/News/2010/01/Policy-and-Industry-FCC-Tech-Heavyweights-Net-Neutrality-Government/

I support the idea of net neutrality. I say “idea” because implementation is always another matter.

In a nutshell, the net neutrality issue boils down to content being accessible by users without any gatekeeping from network owners. The net neutrality issue has its roots in the world of the Internet. That being said, what the wireless carriers and CTIA are saying sounds credible. I am not saying they are right; just “credible”.

Yes, there are those who will immediately suspect anything the carriers will say. However, rather than pointing fingers at the carriers and saying that 4G wireless technology can meet the challenges of net neutrality, make some suggestions that are based in reality.

The carriers are basically saying they cannot build a network to meet the needs of users to see and access content (from anyone) without crashing the network or comprising quality due to the limitations of bandwidth capacity. On the surface it sounds like more carrier complaints, however, the carriers have a point. Given the current state of cell site technology implementation and RF planning, it is not possible for wireless carriers to handle the projected and sudden surge of bandwidth. Changes have to be made.

The biggest and most frequent error made by investors is holding to the belief that a single technology will solve a technical problem. In two words; “not true”.

Technical problems are solved when multiple technologies are implemented in such a way that a solution or set of solutions is created. The changes will involve a combination of technologies and ways in which the technologies are implemented.

The FCC wants net neutrality rules to apply to wireless. This is easier said than done. The carriers appear to have a legitimate position. Planning a wireless network requires at a minimum the following:

1. Site surveys – physical space planning for a cell site
2. Site surveys – existing RF interference and RF shadows
3. Sit surveys – physical connectivity planning – you got to connect the cell sites; involves power and landline telecom network signaling.
4. Radio resource management, which includes:
a. Channel reuse planning – you want to avoid co-channel interference
b. RF Planning for transmitter power
c. RF Planning for antenna positioning
5. The list goes on

The above does not even include what is needed on the fixed/landline portion of the wireless network.

The network needs to be viewed as a system of roads, streets, highways, and dead ends. And it’s all filled with traffic lights, stop signs, yield signs, toll booths, and potholes. Telecommunications networks (and enterprise networks) are just like a system of roads, streets, highways, and dead ends.

Now imagine this is already built. Then one day someone says you got to change it all NOW. Guess what it ain’t gonna happen NOW. It will happen over time but not NOW. The problem the FCC could create is that it will say NOW without thinking of the repercussions. I am not saying there is no justification for net neutrality but the carriers do have a point in saying their networks cannot handle the projected deluge of traffic.

Now what is the solution? The answer is: a bunch of solutions ranging from new wireless technology, wireless network configurations, new landline technologies, and to some extent clearer content business models. The business models frame the way in which technology and information are managed, hence impacting the overall network de