Slashdot Mirror
IBM, AT&T and Intel Plan National Wireless ISP
dailywireless writes "Cometa Networks (formerly The Rainbow Project), a joint venture by IBM, Intel and AT&T, plans to merge Wi-Fi and cellular networks. 'Cometa's vision and plan for this is to offer a single sign-on, single authentication, seamless-roaming nationwide network,' said Michael Mass, vice president of marketing for the Communications Sector at IBM. 802 Plant reports 'AT&T will provide the network infrastructure and management, IBM the wireless installation and back-office system, and Intel the Banias processor.
The company plans to have ubiquitous coverage - no further away than 5 minutes walk in an urban area or 5 minutes drive in a rural area - by 2004. which will require the deployment of more than 20,000 hotspot access sites across the U.S.' What fate awaits "free" networks like NYC Wireless, Seattle Wireless or Portland's PersonalTelco?
Will AT&T use CoMeta's blanket coverage, with 20,000 "hotspots", to crush the "free" rebellion like a bug?"
You know if everybody makes a single signon technology, nobody will have a single signon...
Second post? when did the default subject become "Re:Um..."?
oh my god they are going to take over the world.
Seriously though, its high time someone developed a peer to peer wireless solution that would be totally open, so all you need to to is buy, or build, a device to talk on it, and you funky computer scientists can come up with some dank routing algorithm, and some company can give out a million of them for free across the country to populate the country with nearby peers for everyone, then sell them, and boy oh boy we'd be all set.
Why stick up for big business?
Okay, time for a PhD EE + MD to tell us that having gigs of porn zipping through our brains every second won't cause any damage.
Free networks will never be orgainzed or capable
enough to offer this same level of service as
the "free rebellion" is far too disorganized
to ever pull it off. The small community networks
will exsist, but a national network would suffer
at the hands of the dishonest, and greedy.
Perhaps if you have 20000 people as crazy as RMS,
yeah, it might work.
Now leave the drugs alone and face reality.
"'Cometa's vision and plan for this is to offer a single sign-on, single authentication, seamless-roaming nationwide network,' said Michael Mass, vice president of marketing for the Communications Sector at IBM."
As well as a single point of break-in for the whole shebang.
well nothing is going to beat free stuff. 20,000 access points is not going to make any difference just like 20,000 copies of window cant stop free OS.
I didn't read the article yet, but I'm guessing this isn't going to be an open/free network. I can't wait till the day when you don't have to worry about where you can get on the internet. It's going to be nice to just be able to pull my handheld computer out of my pocket and get online anywhere and any time right over the airwaves for free. I know it would make my life a lot easier. Plus there is the cool factor of just knowing you can jump online at any time from anywhere.
Here a Sig There a Sig Everywhere a Sig Sig...
This is terrifying. It's an obvious attempt at a communications monopoly- they already have all the suppliers planned out.
The problems with such are obvious. If this is allowed to occur, it would be one company controlling it all as it is what is most availible. Start with low rates to kill the competition, then use the almost-monopoly position to kick the price tag way up.
Wait, that sounds like M$.
Warning: Poster of this comment is a nerd. Just like everybody else here.
What do they do about the high power-consumption 802.11a and b require. If I'm not mistaken it's about 50 times as high as 3G.
Also, the lack of possibility to "walk" between the base-stations must be a major drawback.
For service providers, it will mean the ability to offer wireless services to their customers without having to invest in the wireless infrastructure themselves." I don't know. I'm already unhappy with my cable provider, with no other choice available. Do I really think that they could handle this reliably? I doubt it!
Whenever you add another layer of bueracracy, you're just going to get help desks saying "It's not our fault, it's 3i's fault, and 3i saying it's Comcast's fault".
Of course, I could see both of them saying it's Microsoft's fault, please reboot.
just what the United States needs: another nationwide wireless air interface. not like we don't have enough already (1xRTT, GPRS, and WCDMA/UMTS already in testing).
"The cup... the drop... it's a YES!"
Where is this going to end? Are cellular companies going to offer phone service using VoIP over 802.11, complete with roaming via IP roaming?
I think whenever spectrum like that used for 802.11b/a is assigned, the FCC should prohibit people from selling services based on it--users that sell services should buy their own spectrum. Otherwise, such companies will just take over what was supposed to be a public resource. It's kind of like allowing businesses to just take over parts of the public park or street. Such restrictions wouldn't mean you can't use it for business purposes: you can still buy the equipment and use it internally, and you can still give service away to your friends.
There's nothing more scary to me than dealing with companies that aren't renowned for their technology flexibility (despite the point that AT&T owns the UNIX brand).
I'm worried that this idea may generate standards that support the larger (though not necessarily better) Microsoft technologies than others. Not everyone wants to run Windows to interface to a wireless network. If you're running a UNIX, your operating system will likely have stronger security that the proposed technologies that some networks expect your OS to support, such as encryption keys.
Don't get me wrong. I support the idea. However, it's the implementation that scares me.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
I just got mail from a friend in Taiwan who says:
"you know, everyone has a cell phone here, it is so nice to use those GSM phone compare to US, you can always switch to a different phone company by plug in a different smart card on the phone"
Maybe the US doesn't need a single giant wireless monopoly?
We all participate in making the world into whatever we want it to be. I, for one, will continue to participate in and support the free, community options.
There is no reason there can't be nationwide wireless availability without the oversight of corporate greed.
And besides, as far as visionary thinking goes these days, isn't "nationwide" a little small? I should think world-wide cooperation is a more worthy challenge...
For some reason, I feel like it'll NEVER get outside those 2 metros.
Nothing good ever does. It's always...starting in Dallas, starting in L.A. 1TB cd's coming out "sometime next year".
I'd rather wait for teleportation devices to be invented before I see something like this roll out. What's next, 3G ruins it all?
Doesn't this seem like a bid by AT&T to get some real money and muscle behind its waning wireless dept. And what really, besides money (granted, a lot of it), do IBM and Intel bring to the table? They are not making the better phone or building the better infrastructure - unless they start completely over. Isn't this just an attempt to build a better mousetrap, before the first one is quite finished. That is, though 3G has been slow to come to fruition, the technology is there, and it has been a money issue really. Consumers don't really want to adopt an expensive 2.5g solution when they are being bombarded with 3G this and 3G that, next week, next month, next quarter, etc. But this will all get straightened out soon enough, far sooner than this supposed one-logon, one-service, seamless nonsense will happen. I understand AT&T and co. wanting to get a piece of the 3G action that might not otherwise be coming their way, but this is a futile effort.
My house! I'll only charge them $500.00 a month plus unlimited access.
'Intellectual Properties' are uncontrollable in the wild. To base an economy on them is just stupid.
Blah blah corporate rule take over the world why isn't everything free blah blah evil empire conspiracy.
Nonsense.
Seems to me that AT&T has less than steller user opinion ratings (i viewed www.dslreports.com for a general view, or you can just input at&t user reviews into any search engine). I doubt seriously that the service will be implemented smoothly at all, and I expect the same types of problems that I encountered when DSL and Cable broadband hit the streets. So great...another huge corporate conglomerate trying to blanket the nation with service. Yippee skippy. I'm moving to Mars.
I don't it having any effect on the free sources: if they're available we'll still use them, if not we'll pay for usage.
the internet is /not/ free, despite what NYC do gooders might say, there is no free lunch
Personally I don't like the idea of big companies providing nationwide WiFi access. In the Netherlands there are a number of local initiatives working on WiFi access in a number of cities, and I'd hate to see the hard work of these people being spoiled by big telco's or ISP's...
The question more or less is can one prevent them from doing so?
My guess is yes...
The frequencies on which Wi-Fi networking is based are free to the public, right? So anyone can use them, right? It appears to me that the frequencies used for WiFi are near those of microwaves (2.??GHz), so my guess is perhaps one could 'nuke' such a network with a slightly modified microwave...
giel.y contains 2 shift/reduce conflicts
"That vision would allow every Internet user in the U.S. to access their existing accounts wirelessly, anywhere in the United States, without changing their accounts or service providers. End-users will be able to keep existing sign-on procedures, e-mail addresses, IDs, passwords and payment methods regardless of the access point, whether its an ISP, corporate VPN, telecommunications provider or cable operator."
1. Privacy nightmare.
"The nationwide network will be founded on 802.11, otherwise known as Wi-Fi technology."
2. Security nightmare.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!
sig
Didn't slashdot JUST post a few articles whining about how the cable companies have a hold on the broadband market and there isn't enough competition? Come on.
Does anyone else worry about all these signals in the airwaves? Cell phones, Wi-Fi, Sattelite communications.
Soon I'll have to put aluminum foil all around my body, and not just my head.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
I can buy it from them in 2005 at pennies on the dollar!
Who else do you know with a mobile wifi hotspot van ?
The larger issue as I see it is that here's yet another large corporation guzzling up RF spectrum and leaving nothing for anyone else.
AT&T has a penchant for loading spectrum auctions with seemingly small outfits that they support, and when one of them wins spectrum it (surprise!) ends up in the hands of AT&T.
If the FCC were truly concerned about competition in the broadband market, they'd carve off two or three UHF television channels and start printing licenses for their use by small companies wanting to be WISPs. These channels would be expressly off-limits to incumbent telcos and wireless outfits.
Picking something between 500 mHz and 1 gHz will allow the users to have a reasonable chance of overcoming losses due to foliage and weather. Existing FHSS (frequency hopping spread spectrum) technology can be used, and speeds well over 500 kbs are easily attainable, yet the range is upwards of 5 miles.
Of course, that'll never happen as small businesses are completely unable to swing the required $70,000 campaign donation to those legislators sitting on the FCC's appropriations committee.
Disgraceful, really.
If they do a good job and don't charge too much for it and don't throw in bandwidth caps.. I say good.
Getting a free network up and running costs too much. I just hope they don't try and punish the hobbyists for their forward thinking (cough Apple, Microsoft, IBM).
I am going to hell and I am going to take all of you with me.
This may actually help free net growth by keeping leechers from flooding the community systems while they are still not strong enough to hold the weight. I'll certainly still offer and use free wireless access but may use the nation wide network when am traveling and just wanting normal net access.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
--once again the red zones are being ignored. Take away whether or not this conglomerate bid for nation wide wireless is a good idea in general, the bottom line is ONCE AGAIN technology is not being planned to be deployed over vast areas of 'the nation". Last I knew "the nation" was the sum total of everywhere, not "just" the core urban areas that already have bunches of broadband options compared to 90% of the rest of the nation.
Enoughs enough, we managed to get electric wires to homes all over, then we got copper telephone wires, next step is fiber optics everywhere or cable. Wireless with competing products and frequencies and etc, swell, but for true nation wide broadband (commercial that is) we just need to put hardwires every place electric lines go.
To answer in advance who should do it? That's easy, the government MANDATES that the old monopolies who made billions and billions and billions of dollars over the generations "do it", they take some of that profit and put it back.That's ATT, the baby bells and the off shoots now. The right of ways already exist, the telephone poles already exist. They either add on to what's there or replace the twisted pair, one or the other or both. I just don't want to hear they don't have the money. I remember one time I was installing modular office walls in an ATT building north metro atlanta, an entire building, a big one, that was being upgraded then sat EMPTY unused. I even asked, "why are we here, why is this company doing this, why did they build this building and do all this work to not use it?" Obvious millions of bucks being spent. I asked our ATT "tour guide" who was there to oversee us sub contractor workers. No rational answer, the ATT dude didn't know or wouldn't say. Nuts. Cable monopolies granted in city after city after city across the US, but they aren't required to deliver cable everywhere in those cities, just wherever they felt like it. Nuts. Same companies way back then claimed you woukld pay for cable and be commercial-free. Nuts.
I agree with the other poster, people need ad-hoc personal wireless and mesh networks and by pass these monopolies, by pass the government, by pass echelon and carnivore and whatever other voodoo censorship command and control nonsense is coming down the pike, by pass the commercial offerings. You can smell what's coming, an internet totally pay-per view for every byte with complex "packages" and pricing scams like what has happened with cell phones and cable TV. Maybe that would work, I don't know, but something has to be done to get broadband all over, not just core concentrated dense metro areas.
'802 Plant reports'
I'd like to have one of those, does it have a usb port?
"It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
AT&T does not own the UNIX "brand". The UNIX trademark has belonged to the Open Group for more than a decade.
http://www.unix.org/
I don't the OSS would have the slightest idea how to deal with something this big.
The band isn't regulated, so you can do what you want. They have to accept interference from your 2.4Ghz devices.. soo.. read between the lines if you're spiteful.
If widespread 802.11 is what it takes to get reliable, IP-based wireless everywhere, then so be it. The power is in the hands of consumers now to do it themselves.. and yes, I've been to some wireless presentations where industry experts have said 802.11 based cell phones are not out of the realm of possibility,expected and planned for. The only reason they don't exist now is the manufacturers don't want to piss off the people who got hosed by the joke that is 3G.
Which just opens up an opportunity for someone else.
..don't panic
Comment removed based on user account deletion
802.11 a/b band is allocated for *consumer* use. If this is how consumers want the frequency to be used, so be it. I, for one, can see a large demand for nationwide broadband, especially wireless. At the moment, broadband users can't even dial up to their ISP over the phone from the road, much less get broadband access to their account from a moving vehicle or a foreign city.
/. hopefuls out there, maybe this will serve as a good case-in-point to prove to the FCC that companies don't have to *own* frequencies to be able to do business on them. If we can convince them of this, it could still be possible to fix some of the FCC's biggest mistakes :)
It just boils down to the fact that consumers will have to vote with their dollars to say how they want this (their) bandwidth to be used.
And, for all the
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
Free networks can't cover the continent. & if everybodu used them, they would overload. So this way, some people will have the option to use a free network, while most will rely on paid service. It's a good thing.
This seems more like the biggies don't want to be left out of the race as Dayton Skye (earthlink guy) is rolling out his Boingo network (www.boingo.net I think.. could be .com). He's doing some pay service for wireless networks. If an national ISP also had AP's in good public places (airports and such) I would think of switching to them just for that fact. How many times would it have been nice to get access to the net while sitting at an airport termainal.
I think whenever spectrum like that used for 802.11b/a is assigned, the FCC should prohibit people from selling services based on it--users that sell services should buy their own spectrum. Otherwise, such companies will just take over what was supposed to be a public resource.
Why not just liberate the rest of the specturm? It's all fine and dandy that someone wants to build an infrastructure and charge for it, so long as the rest of us are free to offer service as well. Why would someone pay for rainbow when they could get free service? The most disturbing thing about all this is that the prime movers are large monopoly interests that have abused their position before. Let these turkeys have 2.4 GHz and give the rest of us 5 and above.
You know, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is only half the story. The other end of the thing collects quarters from gutters, under people's couches and places like that. With economic conditions the way they are, the rainbow has taken to mugging people. I was struck by one the other day and I'm afraid it will happen again.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is exactly One of Those Things I'd Pay For (tm). While I see the greatness of a free network, I probably won't see one unless I travel a few hundred miles.
Unfortunately, I'll probably get small fee'd to annoyance, but hey, I'll have net access at my run-down hotel in the country.
That vision would allow every Internet user in the U.S. to access their existing accounts wirelessly, anywhere in the United States, without changing their accounts or service providers.
Sure, it's early, it may be hot air, but I say "Go IBM! This is exactly what I want!" rather than wish death upon Big Business....
I Support Fair Use
An article that someone is going to build what will probably be a really useful wireless network on a scale that will actually make it useful and all that half the posters on here can do is whine that it won't be free. Well of course it won't be. There is no such thing as free wireless internet access. Only access that somebody else is paying for. Either because they feel generous, or because they hope you'll spend your money on something else. Will all the posters whining about this please go and build this free network that they are talking about. I expect it to be a great sucess once it's build and working.
Sig is taking a break!
IBM has said they want to turn computing into a utility (kind of like how the the weather simulations were conducted in "permutation city" :) so having a nation-wide wireless network (alongside its global services division) seems like just another step down the road... to world domination, j/k!
:) as well as take steps to protect personal and community networks already existing.
ironically tho, the very idea of mimicking a utility would appear to make government (federal, state or municipal) more suited to its delivery -- like how the road and highway system is administered in the US or perhaps a pseudo-public venture like the US postal service, which still leaves room for private competition.
the altruistically anarchic model for wireless network expansion is ideal and i hope it continues! but it's naive to think private entities would be content to provide equipment (as literally shareware) for an emerging wireless network and not seek to run (and monetize) them.
local, state or federal government i think would be wise to take the initiative and make sure providing computing utility does not become an entirely private venture (they might even contract with cometa
First, 802.11b has some problems with security. That's number one. Second, there are some real problems with what they are going to have to do to make it work. If they make no changes to hardware, they are just begging to be hacked. My guess is they won't run encryption and they will have some sort of webpage that automagically loads when you hit the AP asking for a web page (this is what Wayport does). Second, free AP's setup by home users and others are all over the place and already occupying a channel (probably channel 6 as that's a common default). There is not enough channels to make this work on 802.11b. It will almost have to be a bastardized version of it or maybe 802.11g (running in 5 GHz). In either of these, because of the frequencies used, the range will suck unless you exceed the power limit set by the standard. I just don't see this being used as cell phones are used today. It would be nice and I SURE AS HELL WOULD PAY for it because I love wireless. Being able to browse on my PDA on the bus or train would be wonderful. Is it feasible? Well, if you have as deep of pockets as AT&T the answer would be maybe but my answer would be no.
Gorkman
This may not be timeless literature, but it is entertaining and mildly thought proovoking. I also like novels that I can read in their entirety duing an average crap.
Worst. Sig. Ever.
IANALBIPOOTV
It seems to me that these companies might be wandinging into a bit of a legal gray area by trying to offer pay services based on spectrum that has been set aside for free public use. I can't imagine the FCC allowing Clear Channel to throw up a stick and start broadcasting a commercial signal below the 92 MHz mark on your FM dial.
Of course, if the portion of the spectrum used by 802.11 a/b isn't specifically stamped "Non-Commercial Use Only", then I don't see how AT&T et al. can be stopped.
I guess the major question is: "Does the fact that the public has the right to use a given resource for free preclude individuals/corporations from packaging and selling that resource?" I would say as long as Ma Bell's nationwide WiFi network doesn't keep you from using a free WiFi network, then AT&T's in the clear.
Now, will people want to pay for something they could get for free? Of course they would. How else has Micro$oft stayed in business for so long?
They should make the sign-on use Microsoft Passport. The innovation part is already done. Now they just need the wireless network( running on Win2k servers haha.). Sorry for not reading the article. I can't seem to get it to load. Must be slashdotted.
Who drew the customer service stick? All of these corps. have awefull service.
Me: Um, im not getting a signal here, is there an outage?
Att: No, it's your computer.
Me: You don't understand, im on a mac, it doesn't break.
Att: we don't support macs, linux boxes or even sun machines for that matter. Not that I know what any of those are, i just read what they tell me.
Me: What? Your not trained to trouble-shoot a wireless network?
Att: No they fired all of the actuall computer-people in early 2002, thanks God, they stunk... Anything else I can help you with?
Me: Um... no, I gues not...
Att: thanks, have a good day...
I for one think its a good idea, I would pay for nationwide wireless internet. It would be nice on those road trips, I could just bring a laptop along and surf the net or something.
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
I live in a small town (25k people)...We have DSL, and wireless internet options, but the prices are outrageous, $100 to install a wireless antenna and $50/month. For the DSL, you have to pay $20/month to a local ISP for an ip address, and another $30/month to the DSL provider (the DSL modem is an additional $150!)...there needs to be competition for broadband as well as access to it.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
The 2.4 GHz area is at least 1/2 allocated to Amateur Radio (for now at least, remember 220 and 11m?)
...
All modes and licensees (except Novices) are authorized on the following bands [FCC Rules, Part 97.301(a)]:
2300-2310 MHz
2390-2450 MHz
"It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
True Windows hasn't succeeded in crushing Linx, but the "bandwidth" of pcs is unlimited. If I buy a new computer and put Linux on it it doesn't directly effect the neighboring systems.
WiFi is different. There you have a limited amount of bandwidth that is availible and inevitably debates will arise over who can have it. The First Come First Served argument probably won't cut it unless you can afford the same quality legal teams as IBM, Intel, and AT&T.
Take the case of Starbucks vs. Oregon's Personal Telco reported here. In that cose both sides are using open spectrum but Starbucks is claiming some sort of "inalienable right" to own the frequency since it is the same frequency that they use in any other city. Personal Telco is a volunteer project so they can hardly afford the lawyers to fight this one off.
And, even if the established free projects don't get shut down the revolution may still be stopped. Those free projects aren't ubiquitous. If Starbucks, AT&T and the rest overload the spectrum in other areas (such as rural areas) then there will be no room for new groups to start up.
I'm not arguing that AT&T has this in mind or that they have "no right" to step in and provide this service. But, I do believe that when push comes to shove (I'm certain that it will) and lawyers get involved, then the issue will be decided on the decidedly skewed playing field of the courts, in front of the FCC and in Congress where AT&T's deep pockets will hold sway.
Hmmm... IBM partnering with someone to create an ISP? Hope it doesn't go the way of Prodigy. I worked there for a couple of years, and in that short time saw a lot of management insanity.
I wish them the best of luck...
My aunt and uncle live outside of Rapid City South Dakota and they have no ways of gettings internet access other then the ol 56k. They can not get sat service, DSL, Cable, or anything of the sorts. They are not insanely far out, just up the road a bit and you can see Rapid from their house. My grandmother lives in Arlington, KS. Its about 45 minutes from Wichita. She has no cell phone coverage out there. None. No TDMA no nothing. Neither of these two people will probably be able to receive this NATION WIDE coverage. Sine when did putting something in NYC and LA mean nationwide coverage? I hear shows say they broadcast coast-to-coast yet I know there are places they do not broadcast to. Heck, with some shows you couldnt even drive across the country and hear them every step of the way, yet they are coast to coast.
Sigh - just a bleep on the advertisement radar
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
fucking negative bastards, get a life, get over the monopoly speel and look for the positive in things. jesus christ, 90% of the posts here are about how this is going to create a huge monopoly, bitching about how it wont be "nationwide" because people know of areas where nothing is available, about how they dont want to be involved in anything that includes ibm, att and intel together.
I've been predicting a Navi/SE Lain like universal network for some time. I wasn't really expecting though for another 5-7 years. Of course it may take that long to work out the bugs.
Viva la Lain!
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
I'm fairly dubious about the numbers of hot spots they're talking about rolling out. 25-50,000 acess points to cover major metropolitan areas (obviously nationwide doesn't really mean anything in this context) so that no one is more than five minutes away? I don't see how that is possible. DJ Unstrung
"The stars are matter, we're matter, but it doesn't matter." - DVV
"I don't the OSS would have the slightest idea how to deal with something this big."
What's their incentive to do so? AT&T, on the other hand, makes quite a pretty penny on providing a service people need/want.
Funny you mention that. Recently I found out about this device called a "radio". This "radio" thing can "tune in" these neat things called "stations" - and I can actually listen to music on these so called "stations".
(Unfortunately most of them want to blast me with Britney Spears or other such nonsese and seem to be controlled by some secret organization code named "Clear Channel", but that's another story.)
Not only are there these "stations" but they also seem to be divided into "bands", something called AM and FM. They are futher split into "frequencies". It seems the air is full of these "radio waves" which I can use my "radio" to pickup pretty well anywhere. I'm told these waves belong to a big soup of 'em called a "spectrum". I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like there is a whole lot of different types of these things and they are all over the place! Imagine that! I've even heard about an even newer technology called "Broadcast Television"...
Joking aside, it's also interesting to note that anyone using an electric hair dryer is exposed to far more ELF radiation in a few minutes then they are sitting in front of a monitor all day.
Ionizing radiation is what you need to be afraid of... unless you are really close the the transmission source.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Because they're taking over spectrum that is designated for consumer use and pushing consumer-run free networks out of the loop.
And they're not paying a dime for it. They're stealing YOUR spectrum and MY spectrum, and then SELLING it back to us. Think about that for one minute... and if you're *still* not outraged, clearly you haven't thought it through very well.
My journal has hot
I think this will help make wireless network technology more widely adopted by consumers. Once the wireless network community reaches a certain density over a large enough area, what will stop people from just connecting to one another instead of just to an ISP (think gnutella, but much, much faster . . .).
What would prevent a "wireless" internet from making all the internet "FREE" (in as many meanings as you can give "FREE")?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Solid state steerable antenna's combined with the "upcoming" mesh extension of WiFi (it will likely take a couple of years) will take care of all that ... of course in the meantime we are still fucked.
Does this mean that we will see more of those
dang'ed towers dotting the country-side? I hope
not. They are a nuisance and an eyesore? Does
anyone know?
I hear so much about free wireless access points, but I don't know how to go about locating them.
I live in Phoenix and the only option I have ever heard about for non-personal or non-business access points is Boingo - are these free networks basically only available in the silicon valley/silicon alley areas ?
--my default belief is, along with the public roads, that some sort of nationwide broadband would be SO USEFUL that it would wind up paying for itself over and over again in increased US business productivity, along with just a bettering of quality of life. We have the model of the fuel tax, which to me is equitable and fair as opposed to a generic "income" tax which is a destructive convulted joke. Some other sort of user based fee at a minimum level could pay for this nation wide fiber or cable laying, the so called "last mile". Eventually, the initial cost would be PAID OFF, then it would just be maintenance and any new cable required. I doubt it will happen though. Government is despartely trying to stuff the free and open internet jenni back into the bottle, as now people can share info about them and government really doesn't like to be found out and embarassed in scams now they have lost the information lock they used to have, and the already existing big corporations don't want it to change into anything but them still getting more and more money to the point that all your internet 'content' comes in an expensive package from them. with nationwide broadband, and everyone being 'allowed' to host, then no monopolies could exist, and information could be shared with little or no censorship. So, my guess is it won't happen, UNLESS all the people can do it themselves with cheap and pervasive wireless.
--generic rants---
--rural people wouldn't need a subsidy if our tax money wasn't siphoned off to pay for urban areas that are no longer are needed as much as in the past when we didn't have personal easy transportation or communications like we have now. There is no longer such a "need" to have congested over built and extremely expensive cities and "urban lifestyle". And 1/2 my tax disappears into the vast wasteland that is called 'government' bureaucracy,it gets taken and never returns, barely 50 cents on the dollar, the rest for "overhead", this bloated government growth industry that is setup in the various major urban areas, and in paying ridiculously high prices by the trickle down phenomena of urban areas driving up the prices of everything. Just in my county property prices have almost doubled in the past few years, primarily from city people driving up the prices as they buy second honmes, and from government not enforcing our border control and illegal immigration laws. Property taxes up, taxes to the state and feds up, and I sure ain't seeing any benefit coming from all that, it's the reverse actually. Let us keep our money more, then it becomes affordable. Stop the mandated government schools scam, let people home school without harassment, encourage that instead of the massive almost yearly increases in local property taxes to pay for sub par mediocre government brainwashing facilities that churn out students with lower over-all knowledge at greatly increased cost. That's more money saved to pay for it. Fire 90% of the federal command and control bureaucrats, that's a LOT of money saved that could pay for it. Stop encouraging sloth and vote buying with the nanny welfare state, save billions. Stop invading other nations on a whim at the behest of international arms, energy, and construction corporations, turn the US back into more like a big neutral switzerland like it was originally designed as, instead of the worlds bully. Lot of tax money back in everyone's pocket then, could pay for a variety of projects, including a nation wide broadband infrastructure.
--beyond that I would have to get into a rant on the stock market and the greed and "something for nothing" gambling mentality that takes people over, leading to such gross wastes as the dot bomb scams with the 1500$ chairs and parties. Basic good quality infrastructure FIRST, then comes mega-profit and extravagance, right now, that's been reversed. The money is there if it wasn't wasted. Give people some true capitalism options, right now you are stuck. Look at all the posts from people here, they would gladly pay some more for better home pipes, or to be allowed to host at home. And like my original thought, vast areas of the nation have zero hope right now of getting broadband of ANY kind, ATT and some of these other companies need to go out there and offer broadband, not just reinforce a few core areas that already HAVE broadband, and usually in multiple forms. The nation is "all of us" not just "city people". The rural people of this nation provide the food, the water, the raw materials, everything that's required so that "cities" can exist, all we are asking is some kind of normal choices in the matter, it's just not that much to ask, especially from the companies that have already made billions and billions and from urban-centric "government".
--it sure would be economical to us once ya'all start really paing what the food and water and natural resources we deliver you is really worth. Just like during the original opec embargo, the cry went out "no crude? NO FOOD" How about the rural folks just shut your taps off to the cities? How about you got to your deli and one meal's worth of food run ya 100$? What's that, some over stuffed IT guy hasn't broke sweat for over a decade is worth 100 grand a year but the guy who feeds him can't even afford spare parts for his worn out equipment? Too bad ya say? Would you like that or think it's"fair"? Or did maybe a national go almost everywhere public road system that brings you your food and humongous pipelines that bring you your water and natural gas sorta make it "nicer" to live in the city? Where did the money come for all that stuff? Oh, I see, as long as everything flows INTO the cities then it's affordable. I understand now.
Phooie.
What goes around comes around, keep having the mindset of "screw the rural people, we can't afford them, it costs too much to give them what we already have...", that they aren't worth any "investment", and one day you just might find out how wrong you really are.
Enjoy your urban lifestyle while you still can, it's been massively subsidised by basically stealing from other folks via legislative fiat and urban/corporate centrism. You don't want to "invest" in your rural neighbors, but keep "investing" in high rise dot bomb electron shuffling skim based middleman industries, and urban oriented entertainments? HAHAHA! Eventually you'll find out what REAL human priorities are. Have fun!
That's great.
They will cover 628.2 km out of 9,158,960 km
which amounts to 0.0068589%.
Fantastic!
And no drawbacks compared to 3G except:
Battery life (50 times worse)
Mobility (none)
Security (close to none)
Coverage (infinitesimal)
and I'm still waiting for that analysis stating WiFi performance when multiple users are in the same node.
AT&T Wireless gets involved in spectrum auctions, but 802.11 isn't something that's auctioned off - it's non-licensed spectrum that anybody can use. (Most of the auctions have been for cellphone frequency bands.) AT&T does use some radio spectrum as well - mostly point-to-point digital radio used for infrastructure in low-density nasty-terrain places like South Utah where it doesn't pay to run fiber, and 38GHz microwave access circuits (typically T3 or OC3), which can be cheaper than local fiber loops, and are good diversity options for backing up fiber.
I agree with you that there's a major need for spectrum that isn't controlled by creativity-limiting FCC monopoly control, but I think your ideas of limiting who can use it are a mistake. Making more spectrum available to the public is a big win.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Look, if you were using dial in most of the US, you'd be paying $20/month for the ISP, and nearly $20 for a second phone line, once you count all the state taxes, federal taxes, AlGoreUniversalServiceFund taxes, and such. $50 for a much faster connection isn't a bad deal. (I'm paying $59.) In bigger markets, there's lots of competition for the ISP part of the business.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
They're different companies. AT&T sells voice and data services to businesses and consumers, including Internet dial and backbone. AT&T Wireless is a cell phone company that AT&T used to own, which still gets to license the Death Star logo. According to the press releases, in this project, it appears that AT&T is providing the internet infrastructure to the people who are managing the hotspots.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The FIELD GUIDE to NORTH AMERICAN MALES
SPECIES: Cranial Males
SUBSPECIES: The Hacker (homo computatis)
Courtship & Mating:
Due to extreme deprivation, HOMO COMPUTATIS maintains a near perpetual
state of sexual readiness. Courtship behavior alternates between
awkward shyness and abrupt advances. When he finally mates, he
chooses a female engineer with an unblinking stare, a tight mouth, and
a complete collection of Campbell's soup-can recipes.
Track:
Trash cans full of pale green and white perforated paper and old
copies of the Allen-Bradley catalog.
Comments:
Extremely fond of bad puns and jokes that need long explanations.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...