So far, about 16.4 million in WiMAX equipment has been sold. The equipment isn't widely available yet because interoperability testing just began earlier in July. However, Infonetics predicted that about $124.5 worth of equipment will be sold by the end of 2005.

WiMAX has strong potential down the road, according to Richard Web, author of the report.

“WiMAX promises many strategic opportunities, not just as a backhaul solution for Wi-Fi, but potentially for 3G networks too,” Webb said in a statement. “WiMAX may become a viable DSL/cable broadband replacement technology for consumers, and may even offer nomadic or portable wireless Internet access for consumers and enterprise users. Operators could also use it to carry VoIP services.”

Palo Alto FTTH Initiative Stalls
Tech-friendly Palo Alto, Calif.’s initiative to provide broadband service over a city-owned fiber network appears to be losing momentum, raising doubts about the workability of the concept in other cities

The city council voted 5-1 Monday night to end a trial providing fiber infrastructure and broadband to 70 homes in one neighborhood in Palo Alto. The participants reportedly received 100-Mbit/s data service for $85 a month.

“It would have cost $40 million to roll the service out to the rest of the city, so we would have had to go to the general fund, and the constituents would not have supported that,” Kishimoto says.

Palo Alto, with its mix of community activism, social liberalism, and tech savvy, seems like the perfect place for municipal broadband to find grassroots support. That the idea is losing ground may be a bad sign for other cities now considering similarly ambitious plans.

Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican, introduced a bill that reopens a national dispute that has been simmering, but not fully engaged, since the 1996 Telecommunications Act was enacted. The drafters of the law did not envision the explosive growth of the Internet, wireless and broadband technologies over the last decade.

Ensign's 72-page measure takes a broadly pro-business approach. It says, for instance, that local governments wishing to provide broadband service to residents must allow an "open bidding process" in which private companies may participate. Also, companies such as Verizon Communications that would like to provide video, but have been stymied by the need to obtain permission from local governments, would receive a regulatory reprieve.

"We must not allow government regulations to be an anchor on the advance of technology if we want America to lead the world in the information age," Ensign said when introducing the bill. It "will create jobs, stimulate the economy and increase consumer choice," he added.

Underlying Congress' revamping of the 1996 law, which could take a year to complete, are competing philosophies of how the government should treat telecommunications providers. Are consumers better served through price-setting by regulators--or by letting competition flourish? Is it wiser to mandate that companies permit rivals to use their networks, or will that discourage investment in fiber links?

Martin said he has circulated a proposal that would treat the service, known as digital subscriber line (DSL) broadband, as an information service. If approved, that would exempt it from most traditional telephone rules, such as requirements to lease network access to competitors.

The FCC in 2002 decided that broadband Internet service offered by cable companies was an information service and the Supreme Court last month upheld that decision. That has cleared the road for the FCC to act on DSL service.

Martin said he has already "shared with my colleagues" a proposal that will give telephone carriers the same regulatory framework as other providers.

"I hope an order will be adopted as soon as possible," Martin, a Republican, said at a meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

Since the FCC is currently divided between two Democrats and two Republicans, Martin must convince at least one Democrat to back his proposal.

Telephone companies have complained that applying legacy telephone rules to new broadband services put them at a competitive disadvantage against other companies, like cable operators, who do not have to adhere to such regulations.

"The lack of regulatory parity between telecoms and cable is inhibiting broadband growth," said Martin.

The FCC could still impose some restrictions on the service if the agency found the public interest was harmed.

Murphy's Law holds that anything that can go wrong will go wrong, so it stands to reason that anything as complex as a voice over IP (VoIP) deployment is going to hit a few snags. "You're more likely to hit snags than not," says Forrester Research vice president Lisa Pierce. "A lot of companies say 'we're just adding another protocol to the network,' when they're actually re-architecting the network."

And if anything should set off alarm bells when it comes to networks, it is the whole idea of re-architecting.

The bottom line is that VoIP is a tricky business. It's not just data, and it's not just voice, and there are so many little, basic details that can jump up and bite your organization on the backside, that an enterprise VoIP migration can spiral into chaos if you're not careful. "There really are so many basics," Pierce says. "That's why it requires a significant commitment on the part of the company to plan and so it right."

Avaya IP telephony specialist Tracy Fleming says it's easier to work around the problems if you see them coming, than if they come as a big surprise on the eve of deployment. Planning, after all, is everything. "It's very easy for the details to get away from you if you buy into the hype and the expectations," Fleming says.

So what are the big "gotchas" in VoIP deployments?

Premature vendor choice: Because a lot of the hype and pressure to migrate to VoIP is vendor driven, the decision of which brand of phones and equipment to buy often precedes the more basic decisions about how the new system is going to be used and managed. Making the wrong vendor choice can leave you with a long-term investment in a phone system that doesn't work the way you do.