Indoor wireless coverage for essential guest app access
Normally, indoor or on-campus wireless coverage is required for two broad sets of reasons:
Depending on the specific building, the venue-owners' views of the importance of connectivity, MNOs' views on indoor coverage, users' expectations and other factors, various solutions may get deployed - with different parties paying.
In general, Wi-Fi installations are paid for by the venue's owners, private 4G/5G network paid for by the relevant enterprise, but sometimes cellular DAS systems are paid for by the telcos, especially at really important locations like airports and stadiums.
There's a huge battle going on about the business model for indoor coverage in other buildings, especially for 5G at higher frequencies with poor outdoor-indoor coverage.
If MNOs want to sell premium services such as QoS or network slicing, maybe they should be on the hook to ensure coverage in-building? Or perhaps building owners should add indoor infrastructure (wireless + fibre) to attract higher rents?
Maybe it should be a hybrid model, where the enterprise pays for Wi-Fi or private 5G, but then the MNOs also pay to roam onto it, offload via something like PassPoint / OpenRoaming, or use neutral-host capabilities of different types?
I hear endless pitches for "venue pays" or "MNO pays" concepts, plus a smaller volume of "visitor pays" or "advertiser pays" suggestions. There's no single correct answer, of course - it depends on the specific situation.
But I'm starting to wonder if the calculus might start to shift more decisively towards "venue-pays" for certain locations.
As well as the two reasons for indoor wireless outlined above - enterprise access to specific systems, or guest general-purpose Internet access - there is a third emerging as well: Guest Access to Specific Apps
领英推荐
This is where certain venues or locations need visitors and guests to have reliable access to Internet access to particular apps or websites, usually on their smartphones. This doesn't just mean that guests can get online to check email or Instagram. It means the venue needs them to do something in particular, which is important to the business operations.
Examples include:
There are plenty of other examples, but these should give a reasonable view of the trend. Indoor guest connectivity may extend from "general Internet access" to "specific Internet apps". These may have direct revenue or productivity impacts on the business, rather than just improving convenience and general "connectedness" of the venue.
Potentially, this means that the willingness of the venue (or perhaps tenant) to pay for better Wi-Fi with automated / frictionless access, a dedicated indoor cellular system, or a hybrid P5G/NHN installation may increase. There's suddenly a hard ROI attached, if customers can't board a plane, or order a meal without a menu. Having to delay departure while they go and stand by a window or deal with Wi-Fi captive portals is expensive.
Now to be fair, none of these applications is especially demanding. You don't really need 5G or Wi-Fi7 to download a ticket, or check your appointment-reminder email. 4G or Wi-Fi5 is fine. But if it's a crowded place like an airport check-in hall or a convention centre, then the extra capacity may be important.
And maybe in future, some of these venue-mandated apps could be more network-heavy. I could perhaps imagine a VR-based kitchen-configurator app running on a purchaser's own phone or headset in the showroom.
There's another aspect here too - this type of location will be more likely to want zero-click or one-click access. Either normal cellular service "that just works", or automatically-connected Wi-Fi; not offputting portal pages and unacceptable data capture. Potentially, embedding credential / certificates directly into the relevant apps could make sense as well.
If indoor cellular isn't reliable (or you're roaming with possible extra costs) doesn't the frequent flyer app log you into the Wi-Fi in the check-in hall and again at the gate? And how would the app developer be able to facilitate this?
The bottom line here - indoor wireless system providers, or those offering neutral host, managed Wi-Fi or federation / authentication solutions - should aim to understand the venue's use of apps by their guests and customers - and work to enable the real-world specific use-cases of guest Internet access.
Head of Products/ COO | Product Management
1 年An optimal number of interviews in the hiring process is typically around two to three rounds. This allows for a comprehensive evaluation while respecting candidates' time and preventing the risk of driving them away due to excessive interviews. The initial round can focus on skills and qualifications, followed by a deeper assessment of cultural fit and team dynamics in subsequent rounds. Striking this balance ensures a thorough evaluation without deterring top talent from considering your company. Different perspectives from the core team and codependent teams help make well-rounded hiring decisions while still maintaining an efficient process.
CEO & Chairman at Wi-Fi NOW
1 年Correct. Do you know that Wi-Fi initially was explored as a means for traders at the Chicago commodities exchange to make deals? True story that.. Anyway - YES indeed, this is an important part of the connectivity use case landscape. The other big (historic) use case for Wi-Fi was for handheld bar code scanners... In some ways not a lot has changed. These days Apple stores run all their sales on iPads - without connectivity, they can't sell anything, etc. etc. etc. The truth is we need both: Easy (automatic) access and some way of communicating with the user (not everyone has the app... and it's hard to get people to download apps these days unless they are somehow forced to do this, some airlines do this - like Frontier, etc.)
Managing Director at Wireless LAN Professionals Conference - #WLPC
1 年It is straightforward. People in public spaces expect their cellular connection to work. Additionally, they like provided Wi-Fi to be fast, free, and FRICTIONLESS. Monetizing Wi-Fi has been ONLY pushed by those SELLING monetization products and services! End customers expect NOT to have escalators monetized, public bathrooms monetized, safety and security monetized, or garbage bins monetized. If any venue/location chooses to add Wi-Fi, they should pay for it as they pay for security, escalators, or bathrooms. On the other hand, end customers EXPECT to pay for their cellular access, like anywhere else, as part of their monthly bill. So when cellular doesn't work in a location, they blame the venue operator for doing 'something' to mess up the cellular connection. Rarely do they blame the actual cellular carrier who is responsible for said connection.
Principal at Hechtman Venture Development
1 年Smartphones are also used by consumers to control various items while in their homes, sometimes using BLE or even Wi-Fi Direct. Venue-wise, perfecting Passpoint, eventually via the WBA OpenRoaming initiative, is likely the least painful near term solution. Folks like American Bandwidth in the meantime are making a whole business just enabling Passpoint in a variety of venue types, with carrier support. Carriers have also supported PoCs using CBRS and eSim in a neutral host solution; note that here in the US they have been trying to avoid funding DAS expansion as a solution.
?? Rethinking & Building new #Telco
1 年QR menues are the worst apps in terms of UX or social value and should be banned from all restaurants as if we are not starring enough on the screens (and page flipping beats scrolling)