Clearing the air

I enjoy observing and participating in debates on the key issues of the day in our industry with people who have an abundance of smarts and passion. Hence, the firestorm over Nicholas G. Carr's seminal analysis in the May issue of the Harvard Business Review, "IT Doesn't Matter," has been a wonderful spectator sport.

For those unfamiliar, here it is in a nutshell: Carr argued persuasively that IT's core components (information storage, processing, communications and most software applications) are being commoditized and replicated at an accelerating rate. Thus, it is no longer beneficial to be an "early adopter" or "first mover." The advantage has not just been dissipated, but can actually be high risk (think abandoned CRM and ERP projects). Being a "fast follower" is the way to go. He suggests the rapid commoditization and risk of being bleeding-edge gives IT characteristics of a mature/slow-growth industry. To say Carr has caught a bit of flack would be an understatement of epic proportions.

Carr, who has been unrepentant despite withering personal and professional criticism, provided much needed and timely observations. The piece is an intellectual spring cleaning. The attic of IT consensus and core beliefs had a new light cast upon them. A scrubbing and fresh air revealed long hidden secrets. Unfortunately, the inflammatory title and the deep emotions it touched have obscured much of Carr's factually based thesis. The IT community did not like its relevance challenged.

The Carr debate is a relevant jumping-off place for clearing the air about a sub-strata of the IT world, wireless LANs (WLANs). The debate is whether they are the "disruptive" force the IT industry hype machine wants them to be, or not. The extraordinary and passionate response on both sides of my May column, questioning whether 802.11 sharing was theft of service (thanks to everyone for sharing your opinions), tells me that like Carr, WLANs "disruptiveness" is a hot topic. Since this space is supposed to encourage intense interaction, I am hoping the trend will be a friend.

For the record, my positions are:

• WLANs are major enablers for the growth of the next phase of the Internet in residential and SOHO markets, and for the enterprise market but not as soon as the industry wants. They are hardly "disruptive." WLANs are LANs without wires. They are access technology, nothing more and nothing less. This is not to belittle them. After all, the history of communications growth is the history of the push for affordable and ubiquitous access. However, next-generation value will come not from the pervasive WLAN distribution for communications-enabled devices, but from the services that ubiquitous, access agnostic and always-on communications networks can provide. WLANs are an important missing link in the construction of ubiquitous broadband networks, but not paradigmatic change agents.

• National, regional or local WLAN service will try to, but should not, emerge as a distinctive service. The goal must be providing users seamless and secure compelling experiences regardless of network infrastructure, network provider, or I/O capability--everywhere, every time, all the time, according to proscribed policies and rules. Shame on the incumbent carriers if they loose customers and traffic on this one.

FYI: I love WLANs. I can't function without my 802.11b WLAN because of the convenience it affords me working out of my home office and when I am on the road.  

Here are few interesting factoids to consider.

1. Did you know that to get the equivalent coverage of a typical cellular macro cell, it would take roughly 27,000 hot spots per cell? With roughly 150,000 macro cells in the U.S., you can do the math. And, please leave out the logistical costs. 

2. Recent surveys estimate in the average large enterprise there are 15 "rogue" 802.11 networks in place for each sanctioned one.

3. The levels of complexity for "securing" enterprise-type WLAN experiences to the level that fits most CIO's comfort zones, are several orders of magnitude greater than mere concerns over assuring strong encryption between a wireless client, a hot spot, and the hot spot connection to a secured wired network.

The points are: 

• 802.11 in all of its alphabet soup varieties are not true substitutes for 3G-type cellular networks, they mostly should complement them. Do the math!

• In residential and SOHO markets, WLANs are appropriate tails for extending (and making more useful) DSL and cable modems. This includes the big coming market for WLAN-based voice over IP (VoIP). WLAN should not be a separate service.

• Enterprises are not ready for massive WLAN deployment, but need a solution to the rogue problem. Trojan horses, viruses internally introduced into corporate networks by people bringing in their laptops from home, etc., are a bigger potential threat than individuals purposely or inadvertently not activating the built-in encryption in 802.11. Ask any major university with a WLAN just how complicated having a WLAN can be. Resource allocation, load balancing, maintenance and security (closing off the WLAN to a classroom during a test, and not allowing students to provide an illegal or meshed alternative is my favorite "problem of the day") are just the tip of the iceberg. This is a great opportunity for service providers in the context of an overall network security story and a way to include rogue operations as part of the solution. It is not merely a WLAN security story. 

• Users don't care about technology. When we get in a rental car, all we want to know is whether it has gas. We know where all the essentials are and how to work them. Until that is the same way we use our "Infostructure"--to enable us to get to who and what we need when we need it in the way we find most useful, and parse out our identity, location and availability to the rest of the world , and do it all according to our policies and rules--WLANs and other new access capabilities that do not fit seamlessly into what we need to do will wither.

And on the issue of "disruption," let's ban the term. There are no VPs of disruption. We all want more certainty and less disruption in our lives. Is it any wonder that there has been a negative reaction to an industry that hyped its attributes as being disruptive?

Service providers take note. Whether it be the wireless side of the house bundling wired and WLAN as an access technology agnostic means for using a variety new services, or the wired side, the opportunity is there for the taking. WLANs are not a service. They are not a threat. They are an incredible opportunity--this is clean space and clean air.

Peter Bernstein is President of Infonautics Consulting Inc. He can be reached at pb111451@optonline.net.