Slashdot Mirror


Starbucks Clashes With WiFi Hobbyists Over Airwaves

fobbman writes: "Portland Oregon's Pioneer Square (the heart of downtown) has had free WiFi access provided since February by Personal Telco, which is a local group of computer hobbyists. Now Starbuck's is planning on offering the same service on the same band in the same area for $29.95 a month, according to this story in the local fishwrap. Without regulation or licensing, and with WiFi growing, this could become a common problem."

23 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. More links by countach · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is a link about using wireless mobile at Starbucks. Here is a Wall Street article about it, and a brief intro. Here's an article praising the idea.

  2. Re:Can't do that? by sconeu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't there a law in the US of A that basicly (very basicly) says "If your charging for it/running it as a part of company infrustructure, then you need to change to fit in with the public free users" ??

    Of course not. Those public free users are obviously Evil Terrorist Commie Content Pirates(tm), and should be kicked off in favor of the Good American Patriotic Capitalist(tm) company!

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  3. Obligatory Onion Article by Ezubaric · · Score: 4, Funny
    --

    ----------
    I am an expert in electricity. My father held the chair of applied electricity at the state prision.
  4. Re:Who was there first? by Jetson · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Why does Starbucks get priority? The other network is there FREE as a PUBLIC SERVICE

    Free vs. commercial shouldn't even enter into it. The real issue here is that companies are flooding a portion of the radio spectrum that has been set aside for general use and then clamouring for regulation after the fact in order to prop up their business model and turn "users" into "customers".

  5. Re:Legitimate concern or disguised marketing? by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, this is a legitimate story. I'm a PTP member fairly involved in quite a number of projects (though I wasn't involved in this particular node), and here's what I know:

    The T-mobile installers talked to several PTP members in Starbucks as they were installing the hardware. They were made aware of the PTP node, and which channel it was on, as well as how long it had been installed (since February 2001).

    T-mobile uses channel 1 on all their sites, so this is actually not an intentional act on their part, but either laziness or "corporate policy".

    Channel 1 is used by these companies because software searches for an AP from channel 1 upwards. Obviously, they want to be found first.

    A TV news spot (link can probably be found on the PTP site soon, I captured/encoded it and let others mirror on faster machines) was also shot today at the square, with a half-dozen PTP members sitting there trying to surf. The clip shows the tmobile and www.personaltelco.net AP's flashing in and out, as they stomped on each other. Performance of both network (we presume, no one has wasted $30/mo on a T-mobile account) sucked badly.

    And for the curious, the Pioneer Courthouse Square Starbucks node is fed by a *satellite* connection, meaning horrendous latencies. The PersonalTelco node at the same location is fed by dual T1's. Do the math on bandwidth and latency, and tell me if you want to spend $30/mo for T-mobile....

    --
    GStreamer - The only way to stream!
  6. Re:Legitimate concern or disguised marketing? by guttentag · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It seems like this whole "news" article is just a sly advertisment for T-Mobile and Starbucks and their new partnership.
    Hardly. Before the article even mentions T-Mobile, it points out that Starbucks is trying to promote a pay-service where a free service already exists. How does informing readers of the free-alternative promote the $30/month service?
  7. Re:Problems with Unregulated by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The University, of course, would be laughed out of court by the FCC, as unregulated means unregulated. No lawyer would have to be hired, no money or significant time expended, just read the relevant sections out of the FCC regulations to the judge and go home.

    --
    GStreamer - The only way to stream!
  8. 802.11b supports overlapping networks by Adam+J.+Richter · · Score: 5, Informative
    802.11b supports independent physically overlapping networks. Each network has a name (an "essid"). For example, if you had a network name "starbucks" and another named "free", and were using GNU/Linux, you could do:

    iwconfig wlan0 mode Managed essid starbucks
    udhcpc --interface wlan0
    or
    iwconfig wlan0 mode Managed essid free
    udhcpc --interface wlan0

    For more efficient transmission, you can even program your access points to use different frequencies. There are twelve overlapping frequency bands used 802.11b, which provide for three or four completely independent networks.

    Attempting to associate with a network named "Any" or "" will usually result in associating the network with the strongest signal, depending on your driver and card. This is also true in other operating systems.

    Perhaps it's more of a plug than a disclaimer, but I should mention I'm involved in LANRoamer, an open source system that you can use to sell passers-by access to your wireless network and other participating networks.

    1. Re:802.11b supports overlapping networks by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 5, Interesting
      For more efficient transmission, you can even program your access points to use different frequencies.

      Yes, but the point of the story is that Starbucks (deliberately ?) chose to use the same frequency as the free guys.

      And yes, the networks do manage to coexist, but with significant performance drops due to them sharing the same frequency.

      --
      Say no to software patents.
    2. Re:802.11b supports overlapping networks by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Is it T-Mobile's fault that their corporate policy is inflexible

      If it isn't their fault, then whose fault is it?

      --
      Say no to software patents.
  9. Re:Can't do that? by tanveer1979 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wi Fi is unregulated in most countries.. including US
    And currently most chipsets support frequency hopping to aviod cluttering.
    The problems are coming in becuase Telco's are trying to make it east for themseleves by sticking to one channel. This saves on equipment costs and stuff.
    In the long run this causes problems.. but remember thats how most people operate.... Find a solution only when problem comes... if preplanning was the norm the level of chaos would be much less.
    The 802.11b standard is beautifuly designed but most people do not implement all the features to cut costs

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
  10. To those who've never been there.. by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know most of you are gonna go on about how Starbucks is evil and a bunch of other irrational bullshit, I thought I'd inject some common sense from somebody who lives by Pioneer Square:

    "Representatives of Starbucks and T-Mobile owner VoiceStream said they were unaware of any other wireless Internet presence in the square and had no comment on Personal Telco's objection."

    Let me tell you something about Pioneer Square: Nobody's walking around with wireless devices screwing around on the web. To tell you the truth, the only way you could have found out this service was even availble was a quick blurb on the news. It doesn't surprise me at all that Starbuck's didn't even know it was there. Heck, it was sheer chance that I even found out about it. I go by Pioneer Square nearly ever day, I can honestly say I have never ever seen anybody doing wireless stuff there. (Not saying they don't do it, just saying that it's not visible.) I don't think more than a handful of people are aware of the 802.11 cloud present there.

    Now, Starbuck's is right there on the square. They could set up a nice little antenna (heck, they could probably just use a $150 gateway, serious.) and it'd work just fine. This has nothing to do with trying to wipe out another service like it, it's just geography, it's just a coincidence.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:To those who've never been there.. by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesn't surprise me at all that Starbuck's didn't even know it was there.

      Except for the part where several PTP members happened to be at Starbucks the day the T-mobile installers came. As I mention in my comment above, they talked for quite a while, with the T-mobile installers being made aware of a) the PTP node, b) how long it had been installed (some 6+ months by then, longer in testing), and c) what channel it was on.

      As far as people not knowing about it, that is a problem we're trying to solve. If you saw the noon or 6:30 KGW news today you saw a piece about the node at the square and T-mobile's arrival. A week or two ago a half-dozen PTP members spent several hours handing out freshly-printed full-color trifolds explaining how to get online. Stickers are quite frequently placed at various locations, and promptly removed by Starbucks employees, but since it's not actually a public square, there's a limit to how much we can do legally.

      --
      GStreamer - The only way to stream!
    2. Re:To those who've never been there.. by Skapare · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I see no problem with Starbucks wanting to offer a service. This isn't ham radio they are using, so they can certainly charge money for it. The issue is whether they should use the same channel as a previously existing service. Before they were aware of it, they could have planned to use a particular channel. But, a prudent planner would have checked to see what was active in the area by simply checking out the RF in the area using WiFi equipment.

      But Starbucks/T-mobile knows about it now. So they have to decide whether they want to continue to share the channel and have degraded service and impose degraded service on others, or whether they move to another channel and have good service without bothering others (until there are more services than channels available to accomodate). Even if they decide to stay, I won't call Starbucks as evil, because channel sharing is inevitable. However, if they demand that others move off the channel, then they are evil. We'll see.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  11. SBUCKS is temporarily blocking the inevitable by spartan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Starbucks main interest in this is merely to prevent people from sitting around their retail stores and using their computers for free. This way, they get to charge everyone for the space, inside the retail stores that they will occupy during the time they are using their computers. Of course, the cup of overpriced, high-margin, beverages made with over-roasted beans, to me should be considered fair charge for rent/use of the space.

    Of course, Starbucks has gotten used to making a very, ahem - overly generous share of the profits for a beverage - what is it, something like 1200% gross margins? - so, now, they're just doing what comes natural, taking another market segment over in which they can jack us all up for the convenience of using our own property, our computers, while inside their location.

    It will probably become the case that they will use some sort of technology to over-ride the ability of Personal Telco to provide free access anywhere near a Starbucks location. Then, those who want to even go near the place will be forced to pay Starbucks a damn subscription fee just to try and use what they once where able to use for free. Starbucks will, essentially, highjack the air in and near their retail locations.

    So, seems to me that if everyone who was smart about this and committed to maintaining free access, they would cluster as many free access points around every Starbucks as they can.

  12. Re:Starbucks finally read the holy doctorine of... by cioxx · · Score: 4, Informative
    It was Latte wishes and .NET dreams all along.

    Story:


    Internet and caffeine addicts unite - you have nothing to lose but your foam. Microsoft (MSFT) and coffee monolith Starbucks (SBUX) have agreed to jointly offer high-speed Internet connections in Starbucks stores throughout North America, the companies announced Wednesday.

    Internet access will be made available over MobileStar Network's wireless broadband network, using Microsoft software and its MSN portal Web site and service, Starbucks, Microsoft and MobileStar said in a joint statement. The companies did not disclose any of the agreement's financial terms.

    The in-store wireless service is expected to launch during the second quarter and will integrate Microsoft's .Net Internet appliance strategy, the companies said. The companies did not disclose what fee customers would be charged, if any, to access the wireless network so as to, for example, check e-mail over a skinny latte.

    The partnership with Microsoft and MobileStar is part of an overall strategy by Starbucks to upgrade its operations, the companies said. Plans are in the works for a Starbucks customer card, which are intended to speed up orders, and eventually, the ability to preorder drinks over mobile phones, the companies said.


    source
  13. Re:Does it matter? by amlutias · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the problem is rather simple. imagine another wireless isp, building a similar tower 10 feet away, and trying to use exactly the same segment of the RF band to serve its customers.

    you get an insane loss of reliability and signal.

    personaltelco would be fine with moving our AP to another channel, but we're loathe to establish a precendent.

  14. How does the community group pay for itself? by Goonie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I read the article, and I'm wondering how Personal Telco can afford to provide access to two T1's for free. Last I heard, that kind of high-quality bandwidth still doesn't come cheap.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:How does the community group pay for itself? by llywrch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > I'm wondering how Personal Telco can afford to provide access to two T1's for free.

      It's donated by local ISPs. This is how all of the PersonalTelco sites in Portland are set up. The only exceptions are folks who set up a wireless node to share the bandwidth they pay for. And according to Adam Shand, one of the founders of PersonalTelco, the extra traffic acquired by doing this is negligible to the sharer.

      However, PersonalTelco has taken the position that if your provider forbids sharing your connection, you shouldn't either. In other words, if you get your internet conenction from someone like AT&T Cable, you shouldn't set up a wireless node.

      Everything PersonalTelco has been doing so far is on the up-&-up.

      Geoff

      --
      I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
  15. This is stupid. by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone is saying no I was there first. You know T-Mobile is not going to do anything. Personal Telco should do the friendly thing and just move to a different channel. What channel your on makes no difference in how long it takes to get a link anyway. At leastr that's been my experience.

    --

    Gorkman

  16. Re:Legitimate concern or disguised marketing? by BenHmm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why don't the personal telco people rent out space on the dual T1s to Starbucks. Everyone wins that way.

  17. Frequency coordination by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First of all, among equal level licencees, he who is first wins - since both parties are operating under part 15 rules, the Personal T. folks would win in an FCC action as they were on frequency first, and can prove it.

    Second, he with the better license wins. Since 802.11b is FCC part 15 in a band that Hams occupy, get a licensed amateur to set up a station in that band, running max legal, and simply STOMP Starbucks out. Since a ham operates under FCC part 97, which trumps part 15, when Starbucks complains the ham can say "Sorry, but you have to ACCEPT all interference from my system - you are part 15, look at your license. Also, you are CAUSING interference in my system - stop immediately, as you are in violation of part 15."

    While this sort of thing is frowned upon by the Amateur Radio Relay League, this may be what is needed to drive the message home to the companies that CASH does not make RIGHT.

    1. Re:Frequency coordination by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Absolute nonsense. I'm an Amateur Radio Operator, and I can assure you there are no "squatters rights" on ANY frequency by ANY uncoordinated entity (i.e. Part 15).

      Further any Ham operator causing willful interference can be ticketed by the FCC. Even if they are interfering with secondary services, if it can be proved they are doing it just to cause harmful interference, they can be fined heavily for this.

      And finally if you can find a Ham low enough to try this, you've found the exception, not the rule. Most hams would be outraged (as I am) at the mere suggestion we use MIGHT to make RIGHT.

      If you modd'ers want to find a good Troll, check the parent of this message. Bah.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --