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?"
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...
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.
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.
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?
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
thats what everyone said about linux os. First of all, RMS is not crazy. He is only doing what he believes in. and RMS is not the only one who is running the 'free rebellion'. Its there because there are enough people around who are willing to spend time/money to keep it running and its going to be here for a long time. That the actual reality that people who think otherwise should face
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.
--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.
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
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?
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."
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.
I must have missed the posts where people were demanding free wireless Internet access. I think the dominent concern here, a concern shared by myself, is that if AT&T, Sprint, Nextel, T-Mobile, MCI/Worldcom, AOL, Verizon, Cox, Comcast, Earthlink, Erols, Speakeasy, XO Communications, MAE Dulles, Network Access Solutions, QWest, Covad, not to mention the large number of small Internet and DSL service providers and all the extremely small businesses (i.e. run/owned by the neighborhood geek) each have their 802.11a/b wireless access points close to my home, then the interference from the overwhelming number of WAPs will make it difficult or even impossible for me to setup my own WAP. My WAP connects to the DSL line that I pay for, so I am not asking for free Internet access. I just like the idea tht I can go anywhere in my home and connect wirelessly to the Internet. It would be shameful if the FCC permitted these companies to hog all the bandwidth and squeeze me out.
Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com