Slashdot Mirror
Wi-Fi Spreading Fast But Lacks Profits
clapton_fan writes "The New York Times has a story that details the spread of wireless networks but says the concept has been short on profits thus far. Its growth is mainly attributable to homes and small businesses. Corporations are reluctant to embrace them because of security concerns.
Meanwhile, Intel is planning to have every device that uses an Intel chip Wi-Fi enabled which will make it difficult for companies that sell Wi-Fi as an accessory to prosper."
Before this is considered a Utility? Everyone in the city will pay a monthly wi-fi bill, right along with gas, water and electric?
I give it...twelve years.
I hope Intel does not gain a position from which it can push its own wifi standards. Compatibility is nice, but I would hate to see the large number of wifi gear manufacturers reduced to two or three, as is the case with cpu's.
I don't think that the government has yet classified the use of 802.11 as terrorism, rather they have claimed that anyone running 802.11 without encryption or building devices capable of this are enabling terrorism. Which is in itself rather chilling and idiotic, but we should at least stick to being terrified of what the government is actually doing.
Kill Trolls Dead. Here's
Why is everyone concerned about these companies being profitable? Let's get Wifi into as many hands as possible. The faster wireless networks can grow, the faster we can shit-can cable and phone companies and their arbitrary caps.
So, let me get this straight: because Intel packs wi-fi onto each intel chip, wi-fi won't sell as an accessory? Ah, yes, I see...just like how motherboard venders include sound and video, and as such, the video card and sound card industries flail in lack of funds.
Oh wait, that's right...
The gain from a chip and antennae embedded on a chip isn't going to be that great. Intel's mainly doing it for internal purposes. If you want any sort of range, add-ons and accessories are the only way to go, and I foresee absolutely no change in that.
We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
What's the matter? There isn't a single link to a graph or a chart. What am I supposed to do, read it or what?
I think that a lot of that is over-reaction anyway. Airport hasn't killed Wi-Fi in the Apple market. Airport cards and base stations are great, but I know lots of people who use aftermarket cards and third-party base stations. Intel is going to be a strong competetor, but that doesn't mean that they can M$ the other makers out.
about information wanting to be free, but that would simply be stupid. Instead, I'll simply say that big business likes to try to charge for anything and everything, expecting to make a profit. This doesn't mean it's feasable or reasonable, even if it's something the public wants. Wifi as a utility? perhaps. Wifi as a profitmaker? I doubt it. Personally, I think if it were a nonprofit deal like PBS, it'd be more feasable. However, the trick is getting people interested enough to pay for it, and enough people to consistently pay for it to keep it up.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Wi-Fi Internet Access Is Hot, but Its Profit Potential Is Tepid
By BARNABY J. FEDER
With the Wi-Fi wireless Internet access standard becoming a bandwagon that even big players like AT&T, I.B.M. and Intel are joining, equipment companies big and small are hoping to ride along. But many industry analysts say it could be hard to make money in Wi-Fi, which is unlikely to represent more than a tiny fraction of the overall telecommunications equipment market for at least several years.
Many of the early leaders in Wi-Fi are obscure companies like Proxim, Buffalo, Linksys and Dlink. And those that do not sell gear directly to consumers must rely on selling to Wi-Fi service providers that are themselves start-ups still trying to find their way, companies like Boingo Wireless, HereUAre Communications, FatPort and Surf and Sip. The service providers set up "hot spots" at places like airport lounges or Starbucks coffee shops, where anyone with a laptop computer or other device equipped for Wi-Fi can go online.
While analysts hesitate to predict that any of these companies will survive to become widely recognized brands like Netscape, the resemblance to the Internet craze of the 1990's has been widely noted.
"There is a bit of a bubble here," said Dylan Brooks, a wireless communications analyst at Jupiter Research. "We've had more than $2 billion in venture capital money flowing in, more than total revenues."
Most of those ventures are destined to flop, analysts say. Even established technology companies -- like Cisco Systems, the leading seller of Wi-Fi gear; Symbol Technologies; and the Hewlett-Packard Company -- face an uphill battle to earn profits with Wi-Fi because competition is driving prices down so rapidly.
Meanwhile, specialty chip makers like Intersil, Broadcom and Agere have been facing growing competition in the Wi-Fi market from their counterparts in Asia. And with Intel leading the charge to make Wi-Fi part of every device that carries an Intel processor, business may be tough for companies like Intermec Technologies and Linksys, which have been making some of their money from Wi-Fi adapter cards sold separately to computer owners.
With prices of Wi-Fi chips and networking equipment plummeting even as unit sales are soaring, the industry's revenues are not expected to top $3 billion -- 1 percent of the worldwide market for telecommunications equipment -- before 2006, according to Synergy Research.
Wi-Fi received perhaps its biggest publicity push yet when Cometa Networks, a new company whose backers include Intel, AT&T and International Business Machines, said last week that it would roll out a nationwide wireless network for Internet access based on Wi-Fi.
The term Wi-Fi is shorthand for wireless fidelity. Wi-Fi covers a set of design rules formally known as 802.11, which were developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a nonprofit group.
The 802.11 standards differ from another fast-growing new wireless standard called Bluetooth in that they are best suited for transmitting data over distances of up to a few hundred feet instead of just a few feet. The most popular Wi-Fi variant at the moment, 802.11b, is also much faster than Bluetooth, operating at up to 11 million bits per second -- or about eight times the speed of D.S.L. and cable modems. Still reading this lame post? Get a life and go read it yourself. But today's Wi-Fi chips are power-hungry, making them less practical for small devices like hand-held computers or cellphones.
You bet! Companies like DirectTV went after that (satellite TV) market and they seemed to be very successful. It makes a lot of sense to go this route with wireless internet as well. There is an apartment community in San Jose, California that has already went this route. But that place was built within the last year, so it was pretty easy for them to add the infrastructure while building.
Sex - Find It
I put WiFi in my house in July of 2000. By January 2001 my wife's law school had it in the library. By May 2001 it was in a few buildings at work. By August 2001 the aforementioned law school had it in all the classrooms.
The problem with a distributed wireless network is that you need distributed electrical power -- when your electricity goes out, having battery power or even generated power in your own house doesn't do much for the WiFi network in the neighborhood, since everybody is out of power -- leaving you with no network to speak of.
Of course, by that time you're probably more worried about ice-coated tree limbs smashing through the roof than lack of internet access.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Oh, wonderful: Inter will include Wifi in everything, and Micro$oft will enable it by default. Malicious hackers will have a field day.
Ask Titanium owners what it means to have a wireless device built deep into a metal-case pc... obviously the signal is less powerful and reliable. So who really wants a good wi-fi net will buy other hardware anyway.
;)
802.11 isn't ethernet
-- Let's go Viridian.
The internet was also another technology that was spreading fast but failed to bring lots of profits. Most of the money moving around was investments, not actual revenue. There are no easy profits. There are always competitors, margins are razor-thin and even if you are doing well you need to watch your back for the one that will bring you down. In other words - business as usual.
That is, of course, unless you found some way to create a monopoly and maintain it. Monopolists are the only ones that get the goose that lays golden eggs. WiFi is not going to be that goose.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
They didn't even claim that.
/. embellished it to 'enabling terrorism'.
Wired added the word terrorism,
They see the proliferation of completely insecure network infrastructures as a future source of problems.
So does anyone who knows how the shit works.
They're looking into what kind of minimum competence standard could be mandated to protect such systems.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The fact that a bunch of paranoid lunatics on slashdot took one quote out of context and proceded to rant and rave that the government was out to get them does not make it true.
If you actualy read the report, all they said was that wifi was a really usefull technology, but if you used it you should keep in mind that you're opening yourself up to some security problems.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
There are techniques for differentiating signals within a small frequency band, like chipping sequences (to name the first thing that comes to mind). Wi-fi would naturally use those.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
It seems that Cometa networks, formed by tech giants AT&T, Intel, and IBM, will be the company to turn nationwide Wi-Fi into a reality. They plan on unrolling 20,000 access points across the top 50 U.S. metropolitan areas in two years. The service will be sold wholesale, and it's estimated that consumers will be able to access the network for between $10-$20 per month. The Times article mentions Cometa, but this Wireless NewsFactor article goes into more detail. And of course there is the company's own website as well.
Okay, let's make this plain off the top...this post is probably at least 75% pure, unadulterated flamebait. Having said that...
What is so hot about WiFi, anyway? I mean, I can see it for corporate and educational campuses, letting Joe or Jane User pop a card into their laptop, tablet, etc. and access the 'Net from wherever they happen to plop their arses. Email between colleagues, data-sharing for study groups and all that...those are the benefits of WiFi in those places. Beyond that, what's wrong with tried-and-true copper? Does everyone really need a wireless Ethernet adapter for their desktop box? I know I don't; I get along fabulously with a 10/100 switch feeding packets to the various boxen in the house, and it's good enough for server testing, print sharing and the occasional fragfest.
My own position on the matter: For the 40% (my own estimate) of the American populace that has two or more boxen in the home and wants to network them, the best means is Cat5 in the walls. No interference from such sources as lightning, mercury lamps, microwave ovens, cordless phones and so on, no security risks with someone wardriving by and trying to crack in (yes, it's a remote concern here, but according to some "experts" it's also a valid concern), and in the long run it's a damn sight cheaper. So someone wants to plug a laptop into the network...what's so hard about leaving a length of cable dangling off the hub? 100baseT, 16-port hubs are well within the financial reach of anyone who can afford to run three computers in the home.
Don't get me wrong here...I think the technology for 802.11b is a Very Good Thing Indeed. But Average Keyboard Pounders don't need it for most applications. Copper's cheaper, more reliable and keeps the snoops at bay.
These are all my own, personal and (probably) minority views on the matter...YMMV.
'Nuff said.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
No. Wi-Fi devices all share the same swatch of frequencies for all the transmission. Wi-Fi devices send very short time pulses spread over a bunch of frequencies (more frequencies, more bandwidth).
Because each pulse is short in time, the collisions are unlikely - so it works like Ethernet where many devices share the same physical medium.
For WAN type of transmissions, everyone's computer has to become a router, so that the actual radio transmission needs to cover short distances and data is forwarded between adjacent computers.
Google: UWB and Mesh Networks.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
to mandate that all computers be wireless enabled in five years... get the industry moving in the right direction.
No, we fucking don't. It's not the gov't job to mandate technology changes unless it benefits people as a whole. And even then, it's questionable. I'm perfectly happy paying $10 for a cheap-o NIC. I have no use for wireless whatsoever. I don't want to have to pay $50 for a NIC just because the gov't mandates it.
The thing is, bandwidth isn't a fixed quantity.
There are plenty of things that can be done; directional antennas and careful placement of base stations can reduce/increase/control the volume/distance covered.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Rather, some hysterical idiot took one quote out of context, embelished it, and then slashdot published it on the front page as fact.
The government never said anything like that.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Intel is planning to have every device that uses an Intel chip Wi-Fi enabled...
Will this be before or after they release the Octium 4 with its built-in modem?
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
And companies will continue to wait until this technology matures, gets secure, or gets useful. Where I work we're lucky to get 30 feet of reception, we're completely aware of most of the security issues and it's completely not worth it.
I'd rather have fiber/speed to my nodes than them being able to take a laptop out in the rain, anyday, but perhaps that's just the geek/sun-fearer in me. Give me a tech like the potty robots that can replace all my cat5 with 10,000 Base-T fiber for under a grand and I'm there!
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
Speaking from the perspective as an Intel contractor who does product development/QA on wireless gear....I would NOT buy an Intel wireless device.
They often develop gear in a joint venture with GemTek of Taiwan.
Most slashdotters probably know that nearly all the wirless cracking/sniffing/snooping tools require the Prism chipset. Intersil/Prism makes some of the best 802.11 gear, and that is what is used by Cisco Aironet, and Orinoco (Lucent) gear. If Intel starts using a better wireless chipset...I would see this as a good thing.
Until they do..i repeat. I WILL NOT buy the gear my own employer develops.
At at a minimum, PLEASE don't put the wifi chip on the mobo. make it user replaceable, like ram, so I can swap it with something better then that time comes. No? Maybe certain frequencies all need their own antenna design, and I need to get a clue... I just LOVE built in antennas etc on notebooks though.
My hope is that the adoption of wi-fi happens quick enough that attempts to outlawing it as a terrorist threat are thwarted by wide-spread common sense.
Planet P - Liberation with Technology.
www.enthea.org
I would more equate it to MS supplying the TCP/IP stack in windows. Yes, it killed third-party companies, but it is a basic infrastructure piece for computing and should be provided at a low level such as the OS manufacturer.
Adding 802.11 support is no worse than providing motherboards with video, audio, and disk controllers. It's too low level and basic functionality to expect that any non-technical user will care what manufacturer provides the piece as long as it works.
Geeks will always have 3rd party hardware with longer range/lower power/higher speed/etc, just as we do in video and disk controllers.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
If all WiFi clients were also repeaters/bridges, the network would be supported and built by the users.
The wired internet was not a for profit system.
Why do people insist that WiFi must be for profit?
public open WPOPs should be all over the place. The more a pop is used, and the more pops/users there are, the more the infrastructure supporting it will grow.
By virtue of using the system you would add to it's range and capacity.
Just think if all cars had a WiFi repeater installed in them. the Highway becomes a true information highway. Packets jumping from car to car to get from anywhere to anywhere.
A previous slashdot article talked about doing this with Cell Phones. The logic is sound. There just has to be enough supporting users.
comment directly in my journal
... but why is it wrong that my company make a profit? Yes, times change, which is, of course, why the company is moving to high-speed internet rather than sticking with dial-up.
Wi-fi is the only self-operated option available to our company. Other options include DSL, which we resell from the phone company at no profit whatsoever (a loss if you count support), ISDN (same story), or satellite internet (basically the same story; we resell the service and hardware).
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
The Government's biggest concern about 802.11 is wireless Access Points (APs) being set up by workers behind the firewall. This could allow anyone (including Terrorists) access to Government Information that would otherwise be protected. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Pentagon have banned 802.11 until security concerns can be addressed. I'm sure the Government worries about open APs being used for DoS attacks and such, but access through rogue APs is a bigger concern.
Beware of Sleestak
I am also not so sure copper is more expensive - unless you are one of those "my time is money" kinda guys (in which event I wonder if you lose sleep over sleeping) - I can see the expense of buying cable - but don't buy new, buy surplus (I recently managed to snag a 1/3 spool of fiber for $10.00 - spools of CAT5E were going for $5.00-10.00 for an almost whole box/spool - approx 8-900 feet). End connectors are cheap, so is the crimp tool (might as well get one as you will need it for other smaller cables later).
Your only real expense is the time spent planning and installing. I suppose that time could be used in other ways (and hey, in a 100 year old house, there are several more important, and fun, things to worry about than a network).
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Okay, I run a small home network of about a dozen computers. I like to play around with clustering and I'm working on a small web site. I have a nice DSL connection that connects my little network to the hostile wide-open internet. I also have a small WIFI network running, but I have it closed as best I can so that only approved PC's or devices can access my (wireless) network. Why? Well for the same reason I have a firewall between my network and the internet. Sure, given my location, I doubt I would have many people connecting to the WIFI network, but that still no reason for lax security.
Besides, I pay for my DSL bandwidth. Why should I let some stranger passing by or neighbor down the street get free internet access while I'm paying good money for it? I don't get these free WIFI networks. They seem insecure and leech of those who offer them. Someone has to provide the gateway to the internet, which means someone's paying for the bandwidth. It can't be free. So if there's going to be some great open WIFI network, it's got to have some sort of business model (ie- be profitable) or it's going to die eventually -- just like "free" websites which eventually become popular, have increasing bandwidth costs, and finally turn to some ad or subscription model to cover the costs.
The only other solution I can think of is if these WIFI networks simply don't offer internet connectivity and exist as a network outside the traditional DNS and internet infastructure. In this case you are limited to only those services that exisit within the WIFI "cloud" or region. And even if all the services you could ever need were there, you still have security issues, especially if the WIFI service is being offered by average households who may not completely appriciate or understand network and computer security.
I'll admit that I don't understand these WIFI networks very well or the goals of those who want to have large free WIFI access. How do such advocates plan to solve these problems? And moreover, how to do it in a sustainable way that can return the cost of investment to the providers? Please, I'm really interested in understanding how this is supposed to work. Thanks.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
To lots of people, convenience means less time worrying about something. Lots of people just *won't* do something unless it's convenient, simply becuase they don't have the time.
Why do you think people don't vote, or write their congresscritter about important topics? Why is it that McD can sell warmed up shit for $4? Why is it that people can't be bothered to figure out Linux and put up with the shite that M$ deliver?
Simple, they don't have time to deal with it.
[OBWIFI] it's my opinion that any technology (ie, WiFi) that increases convenience for the average user is good, as it increases their time to exercise other freedoms. Likewise, any technology (ie, proprietary .doc format) that reduces conveniance is a hindrance to society, and therefore evil.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
The IEEE 802.11i Task Group is working on "[enhancing] the current 802.11 MAC to provide improvements in security", which includes resolving the WEP problem, among others.
Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
That's jsut means that those device do not follow the protocol that you Wi-Fi cards do. We have 20 wireless laptops in the office and they don't interfere with each other...
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Take the headline, "Wi-Fi Spreading Fast But Lacks Profit," replace [Wi-Fi] with [any Internet business idea], and you pretty much have the history of the net in a nutshell.
When else in history have so many geeks been given so much money to have so much fun? Gotta love it!
Are all your networks set up in Ad-Hoc mode without encryption?
They all have the same SSID?
Or do you have (that is maintain) a lot of profiles, you can switch between?
-- From Denmark