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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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