When IT engineers discuss the “all-wireless workplace,” they don’t intend the phrase to be taken literally. Electric power, fire/life safety systems, and heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) systems all rely on wire cabling for their operation. So, too, do the high speed cores of data networks, where a combination of 10 gigabit Ethernet and even higher speed fiber optic cabling serve as highways for data, voice, and video packets. These cabling applications are unlikely to disappear in even the distant future.
Rather, the phrase “all-wireless” refers to the means by which users access a data network. Wireless LANs used to be considered a nice-to-have overlay on top of a primarily Ethernet –based wired LAN. No longer. The advent of high-speed adaptive 802.11n wireless LANs has stood the structured-cabling world on its head.
Consider that a typical corporate user is outfitted with 3-4 Ethernet ports. That’s four closet switch ports, possibly multiple power-over-Ethernet (PoE) injectors, four cable runs up to 100 meters each, and a four jack plastic wall plate. Per person.
In contrast, twenty users can be serviced simultaneously by a single 802.11n access point – fed by a single gigabit Ethernet drop and PoE injector – thereby eliminating roughly 80 Ethernet cables, switch ports, and wall outlets. Across even a small enterprise the savings will be substantial.
It’s no wonder that noted Burton Group industry analyst Paul Debeasi in 2007 penned a much-cited report titled 802.11n: The End of Ethernet? in which he notes that 802.11n and its successor products will erode the switched Ethernet market. Or that industry analyst Yankee Group noted in a report titled It’s the Economy, Stupid: Yankee Group’s 2009 Predictions that by the end of this year 802.11n will cause a slowdown, followed by a decline, in wired network switch port sales.
The movement from wired to all-wireless network access will have significant cost and environmental ramifications – and will be the subject of many future posts. For now let’s investigate just one facet of the cable displacement movement – plastic.
Cable insulation, cable management/trunking systems, and wiring device accessories like plugs and boots, are make of plastic. PVC, polyethylene, polypropylene, synthetic rubber, MIC, nylon, phenol formaldehyde. Cabling systems are virtual chemistry sets, and each chemical has an impact on the environment - when the part is made, when it’s used, should it catch fire, and when it is ultimately discarded.
In The Green Building Handbook authors Tom Woolley and Sam Kimmons have been kind enough to list and rank the environmental impact of wiring according to energy consumption, resource consumption, global warming, acid rain, ozone depletion, toxicity, photochemical smog, occupational health, recycling impact, and hormone disruption…among other factors.
It should come as no surprise that the manufacture of copper cable has a substantial impact on energy consumption, resource consumption, global warming, ozone depletion, etc. In fact, virtually every component of a structured cabling system – the cable, cable insulation, cable management, plugs, sockets, wall plates, and cable ties – requires considerable energy to create and consumes vast amounts of non-biological resources.
However, the dirty little secret is the toxicity of the plastics used in these parts. PVC is a commonly used insulation material, and contains lead and other toxic chemicals. Not only does it require special handling at the disposal site – something it rarely receives – but it produces highly toxic chemicals when burned. Polyethylene, polypropylene, synthetic rubber, and nylon are only slightly less toxic.
The Green Building Handbook includes a well laid-out table on page 60 where you can study in greater detail the environmental damage done during the life-cycle of a wiring system. Just remember that every time an Ethernet system needs to be expanded, moved, or replaced, the environmental toll rises. This handbook should be mandatory reading for every IT manager!
Adaptive 802.11n is a high speed way to make the world a better place sooner. For the sake of the planet, the all-wireless workplace cannot arrive soon enough.
22 February 2009
13 February 2009
Network Management: The Achilles Heel of Wireless LAN Vendors
Purchasing a single, all-encompassing wired + wireless + network management network solution from single vendor is, at first blush, very alluring - one purchase order, one source of service, one throat to choke. However, the reality of that decision can be very painful. Gartner analyst Mark Fabbi took on this subject in a 2006 report titled Vendor Influence Curve: A Model for Dealing with Major Vendors, when he wrote that no single vendor offered best-in-class products across the board. Relying on a single vendor deprives a user of the best available solution.
This is especially true in wireless network management. Long the backwater of wireless LAN vendors, whose focus on the physical layer generally comes at the exclusion of network management and human-machine interface design, network management is the Achilles heel of most wireless LAN vendors. That is the reason why a vendor's own management tool is usually not the best available for that vendor's own devices.
What then should users look for in a management tool? Focus on how feature-rich the tool is, how intuitive it is to use, and how well it integrates with both legacy and new wireless gear. A feature-rich management solution should address the limitations of proprietary platforms, and deliver a broad suite of options that would not otherwise be available, including:
Vendor-neutral network management is a relatively recent market development but one that is expected to become de rigueur. According to Daniel Corsetti, IDC’s former senior analyst for enterprise networks, vendor-neutral network management is the wave of the future because a single, consolidated management console has distinct operational advantages:
A single-console overview of the wireless network makes a heterogeneous, multi-vendor network appear homogeneous - simplifying training, problem recognition, and fault remediation. Management tools earn their keep when a problem arises: the swift detection of a problem source, analysis of its impact on users, and recommendations for fault resolution are the defining characteristics of a great management system. Managing a single vendor network without access to network-critical data is a recipe for disaster. So is managing a multi-vendor network with multiple management tools.
Users of the vendor-neutral AirWave Wireless Management Suite report up to a 75% reduction in problem resolution time and a 40% reduction in support calls. The AirWave tool supports a broad range of wireless hardware including products from Cisco (Aironet, Airespace, and earlier models), HP ProCurve/Colubris, Aruba, Proxim, Symbol, Enterasys, Juniper, LANCOM, Trapeze/Belden, Nomadix, Avaya, Enterasys, Alcatel, and others. The suite also supports “intelligent” and “thin” APs, mesh devices, point-to-point, and WiMAX outdoor networks.
So the next time you're confronted by a vendor pushing a proprietary management tool, remember Mark Fabbi's words and walk on by. Look instead for a best-in-class, vendor-neutral management solution - you'll save money and retain control over your network.
This is especially true in wireless network management. Long the backwater of wireless LAN vendors, whose focus on the physical layer generally comes at the exclusion of network management and human-machine interface design, network management is the Achilles heel of most wireless LAN vendors. That is the reason why a vendor's own management tool is usually not the best available for that vendor's own devices.
What then should users look for in a management tool? Focus on how feature-rich the tool is, how intuitive it is to use, and how well it integrates with both legacy and new wireless gear. A feature-rich management solution should address the limitations of proprietary platforms, and deliver a broad suite of options that would not otherwise be available, including:
- Automated device discovery across any network infrastructure (WAN or LAN) of products from multiple vendors;
- Group-based policy definition for the efficient management of large networks;
- Centralized configuration for all wireless vendors' devices to eliminate manual processes and the opportunity for human error;
- Compliance audits to enforce security policies at all times;
- User-based monitoring of all wireless vendors' devices for real-time information and rapid trouble-shooting;
- Diagnostics and alarms for fast problem resolution;
- Integrated reporting package that encompasses all wireless vendors' devices for intelligent planning and performance measurement;
- Automated RF management to continuously optimize Wi-Fi performance;
- Role-based allocation of management and support duties.
Vendor-neutral network management is a relatively recent market development but one that is expected to become de rigueur. According to Daniel Corsetti, IDC’s former senior analyst for enterprise networks, vendor-neutral network management is the wave of the future because a single, consolidated management console has distinct operational advantages:
- From one integrated easy-to-use console, all wireless LAN users, devices, and intrusion attempts can be seen at a glance;
- Users can select from which wireless LAN vendor(s) they purchase products, today or tomorrow, based on price/performance instead of a vendor's head-lock;
- Device configurations can be remotely managed, policies set, and RF settings and firmware adjusted, across a building or across continents - lowering IT overhead and reducing operating costs.
A single-console overview of the wireless network makes a heterogeneous, multi-vendor network appear homogeneous - simplifying training, problem recognition, and fault remediation. Management tools earn their keep when a problem arises: the swift detection of a problem source, analysis of its impact on users, and recommendations for fault resolution are the defining characteristics of a great management system. Managing a single vendor network without access to network-critical data is a recipe for disaster. So is managing a multi-vendor network with multiple management tools.
Users of the vendor-neutral AirWave Wireless Management Suite report up to a 75% reduction in problem resolution time and a 40% reduction in support calls. The AirWave tool supports a broad range of wireless hardware including products from Cisco (Aironet, Airespace, and earlier models), HP ProCurve/Colubris, Aruba, Proxim, Symbol, Enterasys, Juniper, LANCOM, Trapeze/Belden, Nomadix, Avaya, Enterasys, Alcatel, and others. The suite also supports “intelligent” and “thin” APs, mesh devices, point-to-point, and WiMAX outdoor networks.
So the next time you're confronted by a vendor pushing a proprietary management tool, remember Mark Fabbi's words and walk on by. Look instead for a best-in-class, vendor-neutral management solution - you'll save money and retain control over your network.
10 February 2009
Voice-Over-Wi-Fi Options for the All-Wireless Workplace
Pervasive WLANs can and will be leveraged to remove dependence on wiring to desktop phones, and to enable mobility inside the enterprise for employees who are frequently away from their desks. Just a there exist different classes of enterprises and users, so too are there different voice over Wi-Fi solutions - no one solution will be dominant across the enterprise.
A recent article by Michael Finneran in the No Jitter blog provides the catalyst to explore these solutions in greater depth. Finneran suggests that UMA, a carrier-based FMC architecture, is not suited for the enterprise, in part because it has no integration with the PBX or UC network. We agree that UMA is not suitable for all employees, but there is certainly a segment of users in most enterprises that would benefit from UMA, and indeed we believe certain types of organization could profitably convert to UMA en masse.
The “right” form of FMC depends on how the telephony service is used. If the objective is to support users who roam within a building, single-mode Wi-Fi phones can do the job. Phones from Polycom (formerly Spectralink), Cisco, and others that were been developed for distinct vertical markets (retail, manufacturing, healthcare) are increasingly finding their way into schools, universities and even mainstream enterprises. Most of these phones support WPA2/802.1X security, and because they are designed for an enterprise environment their inter-access point handover performance and PBX integration is good.
If the objective is to support users on the move within and outside buildings, the right solution depends on the current PBX infrastructure, the user’s needs, and the budget. One option is to simply use a cellular phone whenever there is a strong enough signal. While not usually cost-effective, and lacking any form of PBX integration, it may be sufficient for some users. The other options involve some form of FMC.
The simplest, most comprehensive and most widely-used form of FMC today is UMA. There are perhaps 2 million UMA phones in use, compared to perhaps 2,000 – 20,000 for alternative, PBX-anchored FMC solutions. The UMA phone automatically switches to Wi-Fi when it detects good reception from a suitable access point, returning to cellular when it loses a usable Wi-Fi signal. When on Wi-Fi, the phone sets up an IPSec tunnel over the Internet to a gateway at the cellular carrier’s site: all signalling and media traffic is carried through this tunnel, so it never interacts with the enterprise WLAN or PBX.
UMA is simple, it works well, a reasonable range of handsets includes Nokia, Windows Mobile from various vendors and BlackBerries, and it meets the basic needs of the outside-the-building employee. Build-it-yourself Wi-Fi coverage, a single phone number, good cost savings are available with no behavioral changes on the part of the user. UMA does not integrate with the PBX, but that’s the reverse side of simplicity. At just the incremental cost of the phone, plus an optional $10/month, UMA is certainly the low-cost FMC solution. For the many employees who today use their cellphone for nearly every call, UMA is a good answer.
The second indoor-outdoor solution is a dual-mode phone operating in ‘two-number’ mode, i.e., a Nokia E-series such as an E71 or a Windows Mobile smartphone. The VoIP capabilities of these phones (particularly Nokia) are extensive. The E71 includes a full SIP stack on top of a Wi-Fi interface with the best inter-access point handover performance available today. It can be integrated with any SIP-capable PBX over an enterprise WLAN using the most stringent Wi-Fi security, WPA2/802.1X.
Very little behavioral adaptation is required. When someone calls your cellular number, the phone rings. When someone calls your PBX number, your phone rings when you are in WLAN coverage, otherwise it goes to enterprise voicemail. Most modern voicemail systems with an email notification feature will then push the voice message to the phone over the cellular network. Outgoing calls can be directed via the PBX when Wi-Fi is connected, or revert to cellular. The user gets one device that works as a cellphone + PBX phone inside the enterprise, and as a smartphone with e-mail when roaming away from the enterprise.
The shortcomings of the ‘two-number’ solution are that there is no single-number option (is that too obvious?), it requires a SIP-capable PBX, and it often requires a per-extension SIP license fee from the PBX vendor. And because there’s no handover between Wi-Fi and cellular, if you walk out of the building during a call, the connection is going to drop. But assuming that the PBX and WLAN are ready, this solution can be yours for the price of the phone, with no additional monthly charges. If users are prepared to give up their desk sets and switch to an E71 or equivalent, this option can be very cost effective.
As we have rolled-out an all-wireless workplace within Aruba, we have found that some employees prefer to use a desk phone while working in the office, but a cell phone-like device while roaming. A desk phone provides a large, easily-read display of calling name/number, one-finger dialing won’t push the phone across the desk, the handset can be cradled on the shoulder, and there’s typically a speakerphone function with good acoustics. All of these are problematic with a cell phone form factor…unless manufacturers release more docking stations with a corded handset or headset. While we introduced a number of Aruba employees to softphone applications on their PCs, most still prefer a separate device, either in deskphone or mobile phone form. Even so, we would acknowledge that softphones in general appear to be enjoying some popularity in enterprise settings.
All Aruba employees are given a Remote Access Point (RAP) device for use at home, providing direct access to the corporate servers and PBX without requiring any client software. Effectively this provides inside-the-firewall access when WPA2/802.1X is used. The RAP can be used with a dual-mode phone, or with a wired deskphone on the second Ethernet port to get PBX dial-tone while at home. This solution has proven exceptionally useful to employees and addresses 99% of the needs of remote workers for voice and data communications. It is possible to combine this approach with other FMC solutions such as extension-to-cellular to access PBX features when cellular-only coverage is available, and with full-fledged single-number solutions.
Full FMC solutions Agito, DiVitas, and others provide comprehensive single-number reach with cellular/Wi-Fi handover. But their penetration of enterprises may be gradual. Firstly, their solutions require a software client on the phone. They also require a data centre server that communicates with the PBX, to allow simultaneous call legs over Wi-Fi and cellular, with coordinated switching for handover. Further, these solutions are expensive, ranging from $100 - $400 a seat, and CIOs will have to consider how much the soft-dollar productivity benefits worth in hard cash, and if this level of functionality is considered business-critical when less expensive, slightly less capable alternatives are available?
These issues are typical of early-stage technology. While they will be addressed over time as customers field systems and report their experiences, we see them as significant obstacles to market acceptance in the near future.
When FMC in any or all its forms can deliver benefits that exceed its costs, it will succeed in penetrating the enterprise. We believe that no one FMC architecture is suitable for all applications: rather the right architecture must be selected from a palette of choices, and it is incumbent upon the wireless LAN vendor to offer a canvas on which the different colors of FMC can be rendered. This is a daunting technical challenge which only Aruba, Cisco, and possibly Motorola could hope to undertake.
In this note we have covered the range of voice over Wi-Fi and FMC solutions available in conjunction with enterprise WLANs. These range from wireless deskphones and softphones through single-mode and dual-mode cellular/Wi-Fi devices. The latter can bridge the cellular and PBX worlds in various modes, ranging from single-number cellular-only (UMA) to the converged device (but separate network) two-number solution to full seamless single-number handover with a comprehensive FMC solution.
One of the advantages of UMA in particular its simplicity. It might be a 70% solution, but the remaining 30% is so fraught with complexity that it sometimes looks ideal by comparison. We believe many enterprise users and CIOs are ready to embrace an inexpensive single-number solution even if it is not integrated with the PBX.
Pervasive wireless enterprise phone systems are inevitable: the business case for rightsizing out wired in favor or wireless solutions is too compelling. From the environmental aspect alone, eliminating wired phone cable drops, plastic wall plates, and wired desk sets represents a major opportunity to reduce an enterprise’s carbon footprint while reaping considerable monetary savings.
The means to that end is less clear. We believe there will be no “big-bang” solution to FMC, a single creation writ whole in one fell swoop. Enterprises will eventually reach the goal by taking small steps and achieving incremental improvements. UMA looks like a promising next step on the stairway - the riser is short and manageable because of the availability of robust adaptive wireless LANs, the tread deep and wide because of the prevalence of suitable handsets. The open question is how big a stretch is necessary to reach the next tread.
A recent article by Michael Finneran in the No Jitter blog provides the catalyst to explore these solutions in greater depth. Finneran suggests that UMA, a carrier-based FMC architecture, is not suited for the enterprise, in part because it has no integration with the PBX or UC network. We agree that UMA is not suitable for all employees, but there is certainly a segment of users in most enterprises that would benefit from UMA, and indeed we believe certain types of organization could profitably convert to UMA en masse.
The “right” form of FMC depends on how the telephony service is used. If the objective is to support users who roam within a building, single-mode Wi-Fi phones can do the job. Phones from Polycom (formerly Spectralink), Cisco, and others that were been developed for distinct vertical markets (retail, manufacturing, healthcare) are increasingly finding their way into schools, universities and even mainstream enterprises. Most of these phones support WPA2/802.1X security, and because they are designed for an enterprise environment their inter-access point handover performance and PBX integration is good.
If the objective is to support users on the move within and outside buildings, the right solution depends on the current PBX infrastructure, the user’s needs, and the budget. One option is to simply use a cellular phone whenever there is a strong enough signal. While not usually cost-effective, and lacking any form of PBX integration, it may be sufficient for some users. The other options involve some form of FMC.
The simplest, most comprehensive and most widely-used form of FMC today is UMA. There are perhaps 2 million UMA phones in use, compared to perhaps 2,000 – 20,000 for alternative, PBX-anchored FMC solutions. The UMA phone automatically switches to Wi-Fi when it detects good reception from a suitable access point, returning to cellular when it loses a usable Wi-Fi signal. When on Wi-Fi, the phone sets up an IPSec tunnel over the Internet to a gateway at the cellular carrier’s site: all signalling and media traffic is carried through this tunnel, so it never interacts with the enterprise WLAN or PBX.
UMA is simple, it works well, a reasonable range of handsets includes Nokia, Windows Mobile from various vendors and BlackBerries, and it meets the basic needs of the outside-the-building employee. Build-it-yourself Wi-Fi coverage, a single phone number, good cost savings are available with no behavioral changes on the part of the user. UMA does not integrate with the PBX, but that’s the reverse side of simplicity. At just the incremental cost of the phone, plus an optional $10/month, UMA is certainly the low-cost FMC solution. For the many employees who today use their cellphone for nearly every call, UMA is a good answer.
The second indoor-outdoor solution is a dual-mode phone operating in ‘two-number’ mode, i.e., a Nokia E-series such as an E71 or a Windows Mobile smartphone. The VoIP capabilities of these phones (particularly Nokia) are extensive. The E71 includes a full SIP stack on top of a Wi-Fi interface with the best inter-access point handover performance available today. It can be integrated with any SIP-capable PBX over an enterprise WLAN using the most stringent Wi-Fi security, WPA2/802.1X.
Very little behavioral adaptation is required. When someone calls your cellular number, the phone rings. When someone calls your PBX number, your phone rings when you are in WLAN coverage, otherwise it goes to enterprise voicemail. Most modern voicemail systems with an email notification feature will then push the voice message to the phone over the cellular network. Outgoing calls can be directed via the PBX when Wi-Fi is connected, or revert to cellular. The user gets one device that works as a cellphone + PBX phone inside the enterprise, and as a smartphone with e-mail when roaming away from the enterprise.
The shortcomings of the ‘two-number’ solution are that there is no single-number option (is that too obvious?), it requires a SIP-capable PBX, and it often requires a per-extension SIP license fee from the PBX vendor. And because there’s no handover between Wi-Fi and cellular, if you walk out of the building during a call, the connection is going to drop. But assuming that the PBX and WLAN are ready, this solution can be yours for the price of the phone, with no additional monthly charges. If users are prepared to give up their desk sets and switch to an E71 or equivalent, this option can be very cost effective.
As we have rolled-out an all-wireless workplace within Aruba, we have found that some employees prefer to use a desk phone while working in the office, but a cell phone-like device while roaming. A desk phone provides a large, easily-read display of calling name/number, one-finger dialing won’t push the phone across the desk, the handset can be cradled on the shoulder, and there’s typically a speakerphone function with good acoustics. All of these are problematic with a cell phone form factor…unless manufacturers release more docking stations with a corded handset or headset. While we introduced a number of Aruba employees to softphone applications on their PCs, most still prefer a separate device, either in deskphone or mobile phone form. Even so, we would acknowledge that softphones in general appear to be enjoying some popularity in enterprise settings.
All Aruba employees are given a Remote Access Point (RAP) device for use at home, providing direct access to the corporate servers and PBX without requiring any client software. Effectively this provides inside-the-firewall access when WPA2/802.1X is used. The RAP can be used with a dual-mode phone, or with a wired deskphone on the second Ethernet port to get PBX dial-tone while at home. This solution has proven exceptionally useful to employees and addresses 99% of the needs of remote workers for voice and data communications. It is possible to combine this approach with other FMC solutions such as extension-to-cellular to access PBX features when cellular-only coverage is available, and with full-fledged single-number solutions.
Full FMC solutions Agito, DiVitas, and others provide comprehensive single-number reach with cellular/Wi-Fi handover. But their penetration of enterprises may be gradual. Firstly, their solutions require a software client on the phone. They also require a data centre server that communicates with the PBX, to allow simultaneous call legs over Wi-Fi and cellular, with coordinated switching for handover. Further, these solutions are expensive, ranging from $100 - $400 a seat, and CIOs will have to consider how much the soft-dollar productivity benefits worth in hard cash, and if this level of functionality is considered business-critical when less expensive, slightly less capable alternatives are available?
These issues are typical of early-stage technology. While they will be addressed over time as customers field systems and report their experiences, we see them as significant obstacles to market acceptance in the near future.
When FMC in any or all its forms can deliver benefits that exceed its costs, it will succeed in penetrating the enterprise. We believe that no one FMC architecture is suitable for all applications: rather the right architecture must be selected from a palette of choices, and it is incumbent upon the wireless LAN vendor to offer a canvas on which the different colors of FMC can be rendered. This is a daunting technical challenge which only Aruba, Cisco, and possibly Motorola could hope to undertake.
In this note we have covered the range of voice over Wi-Fi and FMC solutions available in conjunction with enterprise WLANs. These range from wireless deskphones and softphones through single-mode and dual-mode cellular/Wi-Fi devices. The latter can bridge the cellular and PBX worlds in various modes, ranging from single-number cellular-only (UMA) to the converged device (but separate network) two-number solution to full seamless single-number handover with a comprehensive FMC solution.
One of the advantages of UMA in particular its simplicity. It might be a 70% solution, but the remaining 30% is so fraught with complexity that it sometimes looks ideal by comparison. We believe many enterprise users and CIOs are ready to embrace an inexpensive single-number solution even if it is not integrated with the PBX.
Pervasive wireless enterprise phone systems are inevitable: the business case for rightsizing out wired in favor or wireless solutions is too compelling. From the environmental aspect alone, eliminating wired phone cable drops, plastic wall plates, and wired desk sets represents a major opportunity to reduce an enterprise’s carbon footprint while reaping considerable monetary savings.
The means to that end is less clear. We believe there will be no “big-bang” solution to FMC, a single creation writ whole in one fell swoop. Enterprises will eventually reach the goal by taking small steps and achieving incremental improvements. UMA looks like a promising next step on the stairway - the riser is short and manageable because of the availability of robust adaptive wireless LANs, the tread deep and wide because of the prevalence of suitable handsets. The open question is how big a stretch is necessary to reach the next tread.
06 February 2009
Wired+Wireless Don’t Connect
The all-wireless workplace is wreaking havoc among cable and wiring device manufacturers, accustomed as they were to years of fast growth due to Ethernet overbuilding. The salad days are over and the stark new world is one with fewer wired ports and more wireless users. Like other businesses, cable and wiring device companies need to grow to survive. To do so they have to find new, expanding market opportunities. Were you such a manufacturer, how would you cope? Hold that thought.
The economic turmoil roiling the economy is also impacting the networking market, putting immense pressure on smaller niche players. Within the wireless world a Darwinian cleansing is in full swing. Aruba and Cisco, the two leading enterprise wireless LAN vendors, have pulled away from the pack, leaving the remaining vendors to fight for business, recognition, funding.
Where only a year ago an IPO looked like a viable exit path for many of those vendors, that door is now firmly closed. Bridge loans, where available, are anathema to existing investors who are rightfully fearful about losing alpha position to new creditors should the venture go belly up. Even venture capital partners are taking a very hard line with portfolio companies, refusing to invest new funds and telling companies to spend every dollar/yen/euro/yuan as if it were their last – because it might well be. Were you a niche wireless LAN vendor, how would you cope?
The confluence of interests between the cable and wiring device vendors – in search of a growing market but at risk of misstepping in a new field in which they are not expert – and weak wireless LAN vendors panicked for an exit strategy - makes for strange bedfellows. And poor strategy. The reason the weak wireless LAN vendors are in such poor shape is because their products / architecture / messaging / support was/were not up to snuff; something a new owner can't change that overnight or without significant investments. Instead of sliding down the drain and out of the gene pool, struggling wireless LAN vendors are being scooped up in nets trolled by cable and wiring device manufacturers that believe they’ve caught a bargain. Sadly for them, and their shareholders, the results prove otherwise.
On 16 July 2008, upon completing the acquisition of Trapeze Networks, John Stroup, Belden’s President and Chief Executive Officer, was quoted in a press release as saying:
“Belden’s strategy is to provide our customers with the world’s most reliable signal transmission solutions for mission-critical applications, encompassing wireless systems as well as optical fiber, copper cable, and related connectivity products. Mobility is a requirement among our enterprise customers, and today’s wireless technology provides the performance and security that make wireless an indispensable component of the enterprise network. The acquisition of Trapeze Networks uniquely positions Belden to address the enterprise market with a full complement of signal transmission solutions. We are eager to introduce Trapeze Networks’ technology to Belden’s enterprise customers.”
Fast forward to yesterday when Belden announced its 4th quarter and full year 2008 results, including the Trapeze wireless division they acquired on a trolling expedition. Customers just aren't buying into the wired+wireless synergy story, this despite Belden being a first class cable manufacturer. Belden's operating loss in 2008 was $342.2 million, and the net loss was $361.0 million, $8.08 per diluted share. The earnings report stated that Trapeze revenues for the 12 month period were only $13.7M, resulting in an operating loss of $54M.
The fact is that not all wireless LANs are created equal – the 30 January 2009 posting in this blog highlights that point. Acquiring companies and customers alike that compare competing solutions side-by-side, mano-a-mano, and check performance across a wide range of clients and with a range of interference sources will see the differences. Marketing literature is not a sound basis for comparison. Or acquisition.
As for wired+wireless double-play strategies, consider this. Most enterprises use Cisco wired networks at the core, but the largest enterprises use Aruba wireless LANs as an overlay. Why do they do this when Cisco offers a wired+wireless solution? Gartner analysts Mark Fabbi and Alan Mac Neela summarized it best in Exploiting the Enterprise Networking Commoditization Curve when they noted that networks are not homogeneous systems but rather building blocks. They recommend that users select the best building blocks for each element of the network – core, edge switching, wireless LAN, etc. – and resist pressure to buy a single-vendor solution. Why? Because no one single vendor excels across the range of building blocks. Aruba excels at building wireless LANs. Niche wireless LAN vendors don't, a sad lesson that Belden is learning the hard way.
So set aside the false promise of wired+wireless synergies and look instead for best-in-class building blocks. That way you'll catch the genuine article.
The economic turmoil roiling the economy is also impacting the networking market, putting immense pressure on smaller niche players. Within the wireless world a Darwinian cleansing is in full swing. Aruba and Cisco, the two leading enterprise wireless LAN vendors, have pulled away from the pack, leaving the remaining vendors to fight for business, recognition, funding.
Where only a year ago an IPO looked like a viable exit path for many of those vendors, that door is now firmly closed. Bridge loans, where available, are anathema to existing investors who are rightfully fearful about losing alpha position to new creditors should the venture go belly up. Even venture capital partners are taking a very hard line with portfolio companies, refusing to invest new funds and telling companies to spend every dollar/yen/euro/yuan as if it were their last – because it might well be. Were you a niche wireless LAN vendor, how would you cope?
The confluence of interests between the cable and wiring device vendors – in search of a growing market but at risk of misstepping in a new field in which they are not expert – and weak wireless LAN vendors panicked for an exit strategy - makes for strange bedfellows. And poor strategy. The reason the weak wireless LAN vendors are in such poor shape is because their products / architecture / messaging / support was/were not up to snuff; something a new owner can't change that overnight or without significant investments. Instead of sliding down the drain and out of the gene pool, struggling wireless LAN vendors are being scooped up in nets trolled by cable and wiring device manufacturers that believe they’ve caught a bargain. Sadly for them, and their shareholders, the results prove otherwise.
On 16 July 2008, upon completing the acquisition of Trapeze Networks, John Stroup, Belden’s President and Chief Executive Officer, was quoted in a press release as saying:
“Belden’s strategy is to provide our customers with the world’s most reliable signal transmission solutions for mission-critical applications, encompassing wireless systems as well as optical fiber, copper cable, and related connectivity products. Mobility is a requirement among our enterprise customers, and today’s wireless technology provides the performance and security that make wireless an indispensable component of the enterprise network. The acquisition of Trapeze Networks uniquely positions Belden to address the enterprise market with a full complement of signal transmission solutions. We are eager to introduce Trapeze Networks’ technology to Belden’s enterprise customers.”
Fast forward to yesterday when Belden announced its 4th quarter and full year 2008 results, including the Trapeze wireless division they acquired on a trolling expedition. Customers just aren't buying into the wired+wireless synergy story, this despite Belden being a first class cable manufacturer. Belden's operating loss in 2008 was $342.2 million, and the net loss was $361.0 million, $8.08 per diluted share. The earnings report stated that Trapeze revenues for the 12 month period were only $13.7M, resulting in an operating loss of $54M.
The fact is that not all wireless LANs are created equal – the 30 January 2009 posting in this blog highlights that point. Acquiring companies and customers alike that compare competing solutions side-by-side, mano-a-mano, and check performance across a wide range of clients and with a range of interference sources will see the differences. Marketing literature is not a sound basis for comparison. Or acquisition.
As for wired+wireless double-play strategies, consider this. Most enterprises use Cisco wired networks at the core, but the largest enterprises use Aruba wireless LANs as an overlay. Why do they do this when Cisco offers a wired+wireless solution? Gartner analysts Mark Fabbi and Alan Mac Neela summarized it best in Exploiting the Enterprise Networking Commoditization Curve when they noted that networks are not homogeneous systems but rather building blocks. They recommend that users select the best building blocks for each element of the network – core, edge switching, wireless LAN, etc. – and resist pressure to buy a single-vendor solution. Why? Because no one single vendor excels across the range of building blocks. Aruba excels at building wireless LANs. Niche wireless LAN vendors don't, a sad lesson that Belden is learning the hard way.
So set aside the false promise of wired+wireless synergies and look instead for best-in-class building blocks. That way you'll catch the genuine article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
