ndline service. In many de- veloping nations, it can take months or years to get landline service installed. In oth- ers, copper is an expensive commodity, and wire is dug up and stolen shortly after it installed. Overall, the existing landline network often has low availability and poor quality. WLL seemed ready to roll. However, for various social, political, and economic reasons, WLL has not rolled yet. And now it has its first serious competitor. Oddly enough, that competitor is the mobile cellular phone system. And one of the key drivers is the comparatively low cost of cel- lular mobile units verses WLL terminal units. As we mentioned earlier, a major factor in the per-unit cost of electronic equipment is the number of units being produced. Hundreds of millions of cell phones are in use worldwide, and sales remain high. Also, production facilities are already in place, whereas there is little or no mass production of WLL terminal units. As a result, the cost of deploying cellular continues to drop. But what about quality? Earlier we argued that WLL has to be more reliable than cellular. However, that was based on the idea of meeting the quality standards of land- line service in the first world. Realistically, cellular service is already better than the landline service in many nations. One interesting example is Israel. In the last few years, cell phones have exploded across the country, outstripping the growth of the landline network. Most members of the middle class and above seem to be getting cell phones. There are a number of rea- sons for this. Although landline service is high quality, it does charge per minute even for local calls and is a monopoly, with only one service provider in any given city. There are at least two or three competing cellular companies, and as they compete, costs are driven down until they are similar to or better than the costs of landline services. Also, Israel is a very mobile society. There are many students and many young adults living at home after military service but 