Slashdot Mirror
Will Cellular Swamp WiFi?
hhutkin writes "Sure, Wi-Fi is great for my home network. But what else can it do? After reading this article, I'm convinced that cellular is becoming more ubiquitous with wireless networking than wi-fi will ever be. Just look at all the devices that are coming on the market using cellular technology. I can send email and pics, browse the web, plus listen to MP3s all on one cellular device. It makes the notion of a hotspot almost meaningless." But 802.11x is high-bandwidth, and often unmetered ...
But cellular == the phone company, which usually translates into expensive metering and obnoxious, slow telco beuracracy.
Telecoms bankrupted themselves to pay the gov't billions for the 3G spectrum, don't expect them to give it away for free or cheap.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Sure you can download ringtones easily and quickly over current cellular protocols like it says in the article but these mp3/PDA enabled cell phones that are coming out still require some kind of dock or hard connection to xfer information to them with any kind of decent speed. This is where WiFi will definitely come in handy for its speed.
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
It all comes down to whether you'd rather pay 50c a minute to do it *right now* or wait a while and do it back at the office, or at starbucks or wherever. Yeah, if the cell companies start offering data traffic for free, you'd be an idiot not to subscribe, but I don't see it being free or even reasonably cheap anytime soon.
I don't think cell will kill wifi, as the technologies are designed for two different purposes.
Also, I can't get a cell fone (unless prepaid) in my name due to some hospital bills, but it doesn't require a credit check to go looking for hotspots with netstumbler..
Two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do - Lew of GO magazine
Cellular will win out, because it can be metered. Companies want to be able to charge per byte (or Kbyte). WiFi doesn't let you do that, and overall WiFi may be regulated to mostly home/SOHO use. While cellular becomes the mobile alternative!
The Next Big Thing...The Cell Phone
Forget Wi-Fi. The real wireless revolution is being driven by the cell phone -- and is already creating rich opportunities for huge players and small startups alike.
By Rafe Needleman, Michael V. Copeland, Om Malik, July 2003 Issue
In a home recording studio near San Francisco, Del the Funky Homosapien's chart-busting rap tune "Phoney Phranchise" comes pumping out of a silver Kyocera (KYO) 3225 cell phone lying on a cramped desk. The little device is almost hidden by the computer gear, guitars, and mixing boards that surround it. Chris Dunn listens intently, then groans. "It just doesn't work," he says, snapping his gaze back to a laptop screen filled with audio mixing tracks. He fiddles with some of the digital sliders and plays the song again through the cell phone with the bass boosted an octave. Dunn sways to the groove, and a smile spreads across his face. "That totally works now," he says.
With his sideburns and Cat in the Hat striped socks, Dunn, 31, looks like the rocker he is. He's in a band, but he also has a day job as audio production manager for Faith West Inc., converting songs, sounds, and phrases into ringtones that cell-phone users can download wirelessly over the Internet. "Phoney Phranchise" is one of some 950 ringtones offered by Faith West's Modtones service and its partner Verizon Wireless (VZ) for about $1 apiece. In less than a year, the venture has attracted more than 1 million customers -- making it just a bit player in a huge new global industry. In the roughly three years since downloadable ringtones became widely available, consumers have spent an astonishing $1.8 billion on them. That's one of the faster zero-to-$1.8 billion sprints in business history.
You say you want a revolution? The wireless revolution is here, right now. It's presenting untold new opportunities for fortune and glory. But forget the hype and hysteria over Wi-Fi and other small-scale schemes for building wireless local area networks. As Dunn and his ringtone cadre demonstrate, the great engine powering us into the new wireless age is, of all things, the good old cell phone.
Make no mistake, Wi-Fi is indeed a promising technology for wirelessly connecting to the Web, and it has a role to play in the revolution. But as Bob Metcalfe, the inventor of the Ethernet, observes, "There are 1 billion cell-phone users. That number means that the cellular people will have a lot more to say about what the wireless future looks like than anybody else."
Actually, Metcalfe is off a bit: There are 1.2 billion cell phones out there, one for every five people on the planet. By 2006 there will be 2 billion. Every year a third of all cell-phone users upgrade to newer models: phones with longer battery life, more processing power, and the latest features.
This relentless churn drives innovation -- advanced cell phones now sport cameras and keyboards, play MP3s, browse the Web, stream videos, and handle e-mail. Equally important, as cell phones morph from voice-only devices into ever more complex and potent machines, they are creating whole new industries and vast entrepreneurial openings -- Dunn's rocking ringtones being just one example. Each successive generation of devices makes possible new and more muscular applications, and spurs demand for more powerful chips and higher-capacity networks.
The cell-phone and data networks that now exist, imperfect though they are, have whetted the public's appetite for always-on anywhere connection to the Web. Who among us can't imagine a very near future when we'll get reports on dinner possibilities via video cell phones from spouses "embedded" at the grocery store? There's already a Nokia (NOK) video cell phone for sale in the United States, and at least 20 more videophones are on the way. Consumer demand for new tech leveled off during the past three years, but one of the few signs of a rebound has appeared in the cell-phone market, where sales rose 18 percent in the first quarter, fueled by consumer ap
It Came From the Cellular Swamp
Why Fie?
Slashdot, the site where everything's made up and the points don't matter
I think phones should have wifi capabilities, not for getting on a network but for sharing network connectivity. Having a phone that used 3g to get connectivity and used 802.X to broadcast a network "cloud" around the phone would be pretty sweet.
WiFi enables truly anonymous networking activity for the first time. Anonymity enables Free Speech and file sharing to an extent not yet imagined, and with little recourse for the RIAA and MPAA. They will run to the only recourse they have left: the outlawing of WiFi.
Okay,
maybe not quite but since last week I have GPRS on my T68i and via Bluetooth I connect it to my iBook. So guess where I was sitting on the weekend: In a park with a coffee having full access to the internet.
Sure it was slower than my home network, but for shell, email and webbrowsing it works like a charm.
The costs? $50 / month: UNMETERED.
I am convinced.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Cell phones use licensed spectrum, controlled by companies.
So sure let's drop 802.11a/b/g in favour of the cell phone spectrum.
Just don't complain when your paying usage fees to send a file wirelessly to your buddy sitting across the room, because you subscribe to different providers.
I am no cellular or Wi-Fi expert, but it seems like security is something to consider when mulling over this question. My Wi-Fi network is secured by me, but the cellular network, being a public/private venture, seems to lack the ability for personal protection. Perhaps this is a good thing for my parents, as the cellular network would probably have some sort of built-in controls, but I like to control my own network. Any thoughts or secuirty tidbits that anyone can share would be appreciated.
But wait, 802.11x is free. Cellular costs momey!
No, hold on, I am paying $45 a month for my cable ISP. Plus the cost of the WiFi stuff (much cheeper these days). Plus I already have a cellular account with AT&T.
Darn this is expensive. Maybe, if we can just transmit the info we need rather than adverts we can use the thin bandwidth available over cellular.
I'm in.
AT&T charges that rate for their "MMode" cellular.
I just canceled that. Totally useless. Plus, what the screen is an inch across? And I have to click 10 times to get to my.yahoo.com and then *try* to read it?
I was in the Seattle airport and downloaded several albums of mp3s for a 24 hour rate of 6.95 on the wifi network they have there (which is btw cheaper than the 9.95 AT&T charges in Denver). And ssh-ed to work. And bought more tickets. All you need is a laptop.
In terms of bang for your, wifi wins hands down. Though you have to factor the cost of an ibook in...
The problem these days is that everything seems to operate around the same frequency range. My 900MHz telephone seems to pick up every little bump and click of everything in the house!
Besides all of that though, the FCC can bite my ass. I really wish they'd give us citizens some frequencies we can actually use instead of converting us all to digital and forking them all to the highest bidder. Digital is all fine and dandy, but it just doesn't travel through the air like the good ol' EM we've all grown up with. So in short, screw the cellphones, WiFi needs the airspace. Give the WiFi companies a section of the radio band and make it only for use with Wireless Devices. That way cellphones can't interfere and we're all happy.
Electronic Competitions == special olypics (you know the joke my friends).
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
And be prepared for a whopping 4 or even 5 digit phone bill. I know of somebody I worked with who thought it was cool to surf the web from his laptop, until he got his next cellular bill.
My rights don't need management.
until the price of cellular more closely resebles the cost of Wi-Fi this kind of apples to oranges comparison is irrelevant.
I love my cell phone, but I need more than 10MB of data for my $20.
TW
Cellular access right now is like (early) dialup:
-slow transfers
-disconnects often
-high latency
-expensive
I have a brand new phone (it says 3G and GPS on the back) but if i use any of these features i get charged up the ass!
WiFi is meant to cover a small area, like a house or an office, to link back to local resources. Celluar networks have nothing useful on them other than their connection back to the outside world.
Does anybody sane have a T3 that both starts and ends in their basement? There's no point, 100BaseT wires provide faster bandwidth on a cheaper wire in small-area situations. But you can't ask 100BaseT to go accross town, and that's what the T3 is useful for.
WiFi is for LAN use, cellular is for WAN use. Both have a place, and neither can fully replace the other.
Moo. :\
I'd love to see a national Wi-Fi "pool" that users can hop into and "swim" in free of charge, with moderate bandwidth metering.
Freshmeat IT workers could monitor and manage the Wi-Fi pool pro bono, as it could be something to put on their resume. A coalition of top IT professionals could oversee the "pool" as "lifeguards".
Once again, this is just another thought from me.
Moofully yours,
Opreich.
Ricochet had a metro-area wireless solution that was very cell-like, and they failed. Someone will eventually pick up the slack, but it's not going to be quick. I wish that Ricochet were available, now that I have a laptop, for it would be perfect for me.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Ok...how many people actually DO have the 400-in-1 cell phones that include the garage door opener, TV remote, phone, PDA, camera, MP3 player, GPS, 802.11g router, video game system? Yeah these are cool, but I'm not going to go running with my cell phone so I can use the MP3 player. I'm not going to base my entire network in my house on my phone. I (and a multitude of others) want a device for each purpose. My network will have my WiFi router. My phone will place calls. I'm not going to be screwed when one thing breaks, or when Verizon goes down, or when Verizon decides to jack up the prices, or when...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
They have the Ultra plan which is 8mb/$19.99, with additional available at 6/10 cents per K.
The major US cell phone companies are actually looking at WiFi as a way to increase their service.
They are looking at techniques to 'hand off' a cell phone call from the 2.5G or 3G networks to WiFi networks to maximize call volume.
Imagine that you are walking down the street, chatting on your cell phone and enter a Starbucks. The phone could switch to use the tmobile WiFi instead of using the broader cell phone network.
I saw a presentation by the cafe.com guys where they think the WiFi hotspot companies like them and boingo will get bought up by the Telcos to get access to WiFi for expanded phone service.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
The question is, would you want to? While cell phones are the most convenient way to send a picture taken with the phone, it would still require some sort of docking station is order to send pics from my digital camera. And viewing pics and movies just isn't fun on a small screen.
Additionally, the "experience" of browsing the web is quite different on a cell phone than it is on laptop or desktop -- I've tried. Part of it is that most websites simply are unreadable on phones, part of it is that you know that you're paying by the kilobyte -- so much for opening tabs for every Slashdot story and Google result. Which brings up another point: To my knowledge, browsers aren't quite as good on phones. No tabs, and we no the Slashdot crowd loves their tabs ;-) Another part of the "experience" left out.
It makes the notion of a hotspot almost meaningless.
The one good thing about cell phone net access -- you can do it from anywhere that you have cell coverage. I definitely do enjoy that.
In the end, the best result, imho, would be cell phone web access from laptops, unmetered. Does this exist?
You have to remember the geograpy of much of the world. In the US, WiFi will never take off outside of cities because of the incredible expense of giving total coverage. Here in the UK, or over in japan however, our population is close to ten times denser, making WiFi a much more attractive prospect. Japanese cell networks have far more transmitters than US networks because of the density of cellular activity, with transmitters often less than 100ft apart, so it's no great leap of the imagination to see those transmitters being supplimented or even replaced by WiFi.
Wifi and cellular are actually quite complementary..
TI is out with a dual CDMA(or was it GSM)/WiFi chipset.
The idea is that once u move near a providers access point u can make your calls for free
THRU THE 802.11 AP
This is great for cellular companies. Imagine AT&T putting hotspots on campuses all over the country. And the user does not use the super expensive cellular bandwidth...
so it really works both ways.
WiFi is here to stay...and its certainly not gonna kill cells or visa versa
Those are three very distinct technologies with very different uses. I recap and then we all shuddup, ok?
Bluetooth: Designed for tiny personal networks, i.e. connect your cell phone with the earphones and your pda without cables.
WiFi: Wireless lan since it's a wireless lan you can't really roam around outside of area, which is pretty restricted, nuff said!
Cell phones: Well, cell phones, you get the picturu
I thank you
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
So its sort of using the best tool for the job.
Want to download stuff to/from the network: use the wifi link
want to do less intensive stuff: use the cellular link.
There is no patch for stupidity
Visit my blog
what if every car came with a wifi repeater, then the whole city would be connected, even highways would have wifi as long as cars are not more than a certain range apart.
This article reminds me of opposite day. Except for the last sentence.
You see; telecos (in Europe at least) are very, very nervous about 802.11. They paid, literally, billions of dollars for UMTS licenses. Some other poster mentioned a $50/month unlimited plan on GPRS, well, GPRS is really, really slow. UMTS is supposed to be 2 megabit/second, albeit shared with all users in a cell. UMTS cells will however be smaller than conventional GSM cells.
GPRS can be rolled out pretty much instantly using the existing GSM infrastructure. UMTS will need entirely new basestations to put into place. Why build a network with near-100% coverage, if handsets will drop to GSM if necessary? Well, the VERY expensive UMTS licenses require it.
Then comes along wifi.. Speeds of 3 or 10 Mbps. Today. No big network. Free spectrum. Yes, only at hot spots, but where else do you use your laptop? In the mall? In your car? Hardly bloody likely. Hotels, airports, maybe Starbucks. And they ALL have hot spots already! Using the net on a little phone or pda/subnotebook gizmo? You don't need megabits of speed, existing data or GPRS (2.5G) will do.
So 3G is a really big liability. The license is use it or lose it; don't build a network (again, imagine a billion crisp green bills vanishing in thin air) and your other invested billions will never yield any return on investment (a write-off).
mmO2 already took a write-off selling the Dutch O2 branded operator (which will now rebrand to it's *old* pre-O2 brand, telfort). The company was bought for 75 million Euros, and mmO2 wrote off the rest of the company's worth (the billions it put into the UMTS license, which never materialized any revenue so far). The new Telfort says it won't do anything with UMTS.
Show me a device that ordinary people will buy that accesses a service that ordinary people want to use that uses megabit per second speeds AND that can be used anywhere (so, pocketsized, not a big ass laptop). Show me that, and I might be able to get you a very nice consulting gig. There is no killer-app for 3G.
Go wi-fi!
(Though always remember, wi-fi is a commodity, you won't make insane profits (maybe none) and competitors or kiddies can simply jam your signal by using a big ass microwave or other disruptive ISM equipment in the same band..)
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Come one, someone has to do it.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Yes, WiFi is much faster, than real-world speed of either GPRS or 1xRTT. You're lucky to get 22.8/33.6kbps modem speeds on GPRS. But GPRS brings the service to me, and with Wi-Fi, I have to go to where the service is. We're really comparing wireless LAN (wi-fi) to wireless LAN (802.11a/b/g) technology.
As wireless WAN technology becomes better, it will inevitably win out, so long as the provider has decent coverage, a reasonable pricing plan *and* a strong revenue model. My blissful few years with a Ricochet modem made that clear (R.I.P. Metricom)-- the price was right, but coverage was too limited to attract a mass audience, and the buildout costs were too high for Metricom to turn a profit before running out of cash. But the cellular providers have a big advantage over Metricom, since they can subsidize the buildout of data services on top of their existing voice customers, and they already have the tower permits which they'll need to deploy 2.5G/3G data-- Metricom had to build a data network essentally from scratch, and the process of obtaining the local permits (different in each locality) was a killer right there.
And the big news, T-Mobile has just started an unlimited data GPRS plan, at $20/mo for voice customers with at least a $30/mo voice plan, and $30/mo as a stand-alone offering-- no service commitment, no contract. Schweet...that's the kind of pricing that will attract more users, and AT&T Wireless, Verizon, etc, are going to have to match that or lose huge numbers of data customers.
So now my Sony-Ericsson T68i is a full-time Bluetooth-enabled wireless hub for my Palm Tungsten T, my G4 Powerbook, and the phone-based data services. No, it's not fast, but it's better than doing data via regular cell dialup, and it's available all the time, anywhere, and for $20/month with all-you-can-eat service, it's the thing for me. When I'm at a hotspot, I'll use Wi-Fi, but for the rest of the time, GPRS does the job.
That's what you can do with Bluetooth today, and it doesn't drain your tiny cell phone battery in an hour like WiFi will... Stuff like what you just said is a major reason for Bluetooth to exist (and of course it has other uses).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Cellular networks are run by companies that most emphatically do not have your best interests at heart. These are the same companies that, to pick the most contemporaneous example, spent millions of your talk-time dollars fighting number portability.
But getting soaked on per-byte and per-minute rates isn't the real issue. The bigger issue is that the cellular networks are end-to-end controlled by the telcos. No service flows over their waves or wires without their approval. Nothing happens on "your" handset that they didn't explicitly pre-authorize -- the exact opposite of the Internet.
If you want to experiment with a new idea in networking, and you're on the Internet, just park a machine on the net with an open port, and try it out. You don't have to get anyone's permission.
On the other hand, if you want to try something out on the cellular network, you first have to get "permission" to write software to run on your own damn phone, then you have to get the Service Provider du Jour to agree to send you the bits you're interested in (for a nominal fee, of course, assuming they know what the hell you're talking about at all). For an example of this idiocy, check out the API for BREW (Basic Runtime Environment for Wireless). It's the only API I've ever seen that expressly has a political layer in its networking stack.
802.11b, OTOH, is just Ethernet-like frames over the air (typically used to carry Internet protocol, but can be used for any other Ethernet-y thing). No permission, no politics, no fellating the local telco to give you "permission" to experiment. Just squirt packets out the interface and see what happens. Yeah, it carries data, but where is it written it can't carry voice as well?
Cell phones are darned useful, but believe me, you do not want the cell phone providers to become the dominant force in wireless data transport. They will screw you.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
To me, this is like asking if minivans will destroy the market for sports cars.
Yes, they technically do the same thing, but the are not interchangable. Maybe you'll flip-flop over which one to buy, but at the end of the day, the market for both is there.
Life is too short to proofread.
I just finished reading a large supplement to last week's Wired magazine that pooh-poohed 3G in favour of 802.11x. They even interviewed T-Mobile's CEO and how they're providing internet access in Starbucks restaurants. Articles can be found here.
Wired must really hedge their bets because I see on their home page they now have Analysts Sour on Commercial Wi-Fi. Aaah, the "news".
www.clarke.ca
Actually, Ricochet is back from the dead, and providing service in Denver and San Diego. They are taking a much more conservative (post-dot-com) business approach this time. I had the service when I was in Denver, and it worked out pretty well. It's ~$30/month ($45/month if you want a mailbox, ha ha.)
The sharp price curve on cell data holds me back. AFAIK, there are two unlimited cell data services for less than $50/month.
One is Sprint. Although Sprint usually looks the other way, their user policy prohibits use with computers and PDAs. Phone connectivity to computers and PDAs is terrible with Sprint anyway. Everything requires a special expensive cable. Their phones tend to be primitive compared to GSM. Bluetooth is supposed to appear from Sony-Ericsson, but it has not yet. Sony-Ericsson announced their abandonment of North American CDMA development yesterday.
T-Mobile is the other. Their new unlimited plan is appealing. With a Nokia 3650, the customer has a powerful device in itself and the potential to connect more through Bluetooth. AFAIK, the do not prohibit using their phones as gateways for PDAs and computers. The downside is T-Mobile coverage. IMO, they have always been a small-time, sorry coverage cell provider offering big deals in attempt to compensate. If you live and travel solely in their coverage areas, it could be a great deal. I don't.
Data plans with AT&T, Cingular and Verizon are expensive for significant monthly usage. I have had my fingers crossed for a year or two that one of them would crack. I think my fingers are stuck now.
But 802.11x is high-bandwidth, and often unmetered ...
Yeah, but it's also a pain in the 4$$.
Currently, I have a cheapo Verizon cellular phone that with the over-priced mobile office kit, gives me 19200 max Kbps service - and for my needs, it's actually enough.
The cell companies are just now beginning to experiment with umlimited plans, they'll be common in a few years, as will the 2.5G/3G networks that make high speed Internet possible.
Combine the two trends, and in a few years you'll get 128 Kbps or better speeds on a cell phone with unlimited minutes for probably $50-$75/month.
One of the wonderful things about cellular technology is that there is still actual competition which drives innovation and tends to push costs down. Compare to land-line telephone companies, or Microsoft
Nice to have competition, eh?
802.11 can and will continue in places where the consistency of the user experience can be assured. This means in company buildings, warehouses, people's homes, and the like.
Just to indicate how *bad* 802.11 is, I tried to connect a neighbor into my home network with 802.11, and to go (I kid you not!) 75 Ft through the wood construction house in the middle, we had to get special directional antennas.
My cellular phone, however, gets reasonable service just about anywhere, even standing in the middle of our metal-and-plaster construction local hospital, and the nearest cell tower is over a mile away. (I know where it is)
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
its true ive been to russia
Where was WiFi in 1987? Heck, the World Wide Web didn't even exist back then, and true consumer subscription Internet access didn't exist 'till Delphi came along in 1992.
WiFi is still a fledgling tech; cellular has a huge head-start, and while it's plausible that WiFi will get smothered by it, you've gotta remember that we're just starting to see WiFi take off. Give it time.
(BTW, the graphs they use in the article look like they were massaged to maximize the appearance of cellular technology's growth. It's impossible to judge WiFi's growth with their massive y-axis scale, and the x-axis starts in 1997, when cell tech was already well-established and Wifi didn't even exist. Nice.)
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Anyone can put up their own wifi hub, but only verizon and its ilk can erect their own phone hub. Sure, I'd sooner pay $50 a month for a flat rate phone that I can carry with me than paying $30 a month for one I can't, but that's about as much a converged product as my POTS line with this old 56K modem. In fact, I'd sign up today... but guess what? I can't do that, either. Because I live in the country, and despite the fact there's a cell tower just a mile from here, you can't get flat rate cellular service with reasonably fast data transfer. POTS + dialup account = $50; And cellular can do 64kbps, which is far better than anyone around here can do on POTS. You'd think the cell companies would be lining up to exploit this as a means of financing the building out their infrastructure. You'd think that... but you'd be wrong.
Cellular is just wireless POTS. And it seems no matter where the technology COULD go, all the industry cares to think is on those terms. Sure they offer widgets and toys that will work on a tiny screen, and they offer (slow) internet access if you happen to live in a well built out service area where they can't sell enough minutes to utilize all the equipment they already have in place. But if you live outside one of these saturated "hubs" it's the same old story.
You can get unlimited data from Sprint or T-Mobile, featuring shit service or shit coverage, respectively.
I founded two of the three wireless providers operating in the metro Omaha area (#53 in terms of market size) and I can assure you that cellular is going to stomp balls on unlicensed wireless services.
... its not an *if*, its a 'how soon'.
... yet ... but I am aware of several additional point to multipoint installs in that band that are going to compete with the service I built last year. The UNI-I band noise floor is going to reach the same ridiculous levels we see in ISM - it is just a matter of time.
... and with the instability of ISM obviously going to happen in UNI-I no one with the money to drive that sort of activitry is going to be silly enough to get involved.
... which they can already do for the tougher mobile market and they can not bury themselves in stupid anti-customer policies like the cable modem industry. People are going to pay for a network attachmen they can *use*, not a service for downloading Hello, Kitty skins for their cell phones.
What we've seen in the last six weeks in the ISM band here in Omaha is an indication of the future of the whole industry.
Someone, somewhere, which we can't locate, has put up something in the ISM band we can't identify which produces an observed signal strength at a range of ten plus miles that is equal to the signal strength observed *six feet* from a multipoint sector antenna amped to the legal maximum. This has been the final blow for service coming from the second highest location in the city. Crowding and poor practice on the highest point make it equally precarious. Unless you *own* the rights to the ISM band on the structure you're using as a central site, you *will* get screwed
The situation in the UNI-I band isn't that grim
You have to understand the economics of the thing to know why it isn't going to work - even if you don't have technical problems like we're seeing here the only place ISM band wireless is going to succeed is in rural areas.
Customers view wireless as a competitor to DSL and cable and that is a loser's game - if you aren't selling some additional service on your circuit you're pissing away money at the $40/mo mark. The money spot is above a T1 and below a DS3
All that needs to happen for G3 to succeed is for them to provide ISDN like speed to fixed installs
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
802.11 has be aroud for over 5 years It fills a need the lastest cool use does not change that. It is use in offices and factories do do work. To switch to a slow by the minute system will not fly. You can by a cellularmodem, but most people do not. That is the market at work. 802.11 will be around for a long time, cellular may affect some of its markets, but not all. If the question was will cellular replace Hot Spots, that is different.
You say you want a revolution? The wireless revolution is here, right now. It's presenting untold new opportunities for fortune and glory. But forget the hype and hysteria over Wi-Fi and other small-scale schemes for building wireless local area networks. As Dunn and his ringtone cadre demonstrate, the great engine powering us into the new wireless age is, of all things, the good old cell phone.
Sorry, this isn't journalism, it's PR.
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
I live in an area where DSL nor cable modems are available. Our telephone lines do not support any protocol higher than V.34, and I have use the Verizon Express Network and so far it's going great. For $80/month I get unlimited bandwidth and usage and I get pretty decent speeds (nothing major, 125k or so. But it works for me).
WiFi, unless it spreads everywhere really quick will be isolated to the big cities and forgotten by the rest of the country. Cellular is the way to go because of the availibility. Sure 802.11x has fast ass speeds, but I don't live anywhere close to a major city. So it's my tiny bit of bandwidth and go everywhere around here. Works for me, man.
--Reverend Raven
Desperate days demand dire deeds.
until you connect to my WAP. Then you get to realize the horrors that is a shared 56k modem connection.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
What the article and poster are both missing is that cellular phones and WiFi networks have entirely different scopes of operation.
WiFi is intended for short-range use and provides large amounts of bandwidth (54Mbps) completely unmetered.
Cellular is intended for long-range use and provides small amounts of bandwidth which are typically (although not always) metered by the phone company.
It's the old adage: bandwidth, distance, cost. Pick any two.
Furthermore, while I don't see cellular overlapping in scope with WiFi, I see WiFi overlapping cellular in many areas. WiFi *can* be made long range with the proper equipment, and can replace some of the functionality of cellular.
Then comes along wifi.. Speeds of 3 or 10 Mbps. Today. No big network. Free spectrum. Yes, only at hot spots, but where else do you use your laptop? In the mall? In your car? Hardly bloody likely. Hotels, airports, maybe Starbucks. And they ALL have hot spots already! Using the net on a little phone or pda/subnotebook gizmo? You don't need megabits of speed, existing data or GPRS (2.5G) will do.
Not needing a connection in the car? I just love having to carry a phonebook and maps when I go travelling! There's one spot where I have often wished for connectivity for my laptop (which I take on road trips).
To say that the only times you'll need network is at the airport or a Starbucks is just crazy. I'm almost never at either place, and I find myself wishing I had at least some kind of network access all the time.
What about a park? While shopping? In line for the movies to check out reviews? While hiking to check the local weather radar for sudden storms?
Wireless networking only reaches an interesting transition point when you have access to it more than not. And people needing network access will not all have laptops, in the future laptops will be a distinct minority (and can support both WiFi and bluetooth to get network connectivity from phones).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Tssss... keep this secret ...
Read on and be educated:
/ /shirky.com/writings/zapmail.html
http://shirky.com/writings/permanet.html
http:
-Shane
I love teh int4rw3b!!!!!111one1
There are a lot of improvements before it can beat the reign of cellular. One major advantage of cellular technology is the very theory behind the technology-- using multiple cells to provide continuous coverage across a wide area. Granted there are still issues occasionally when switching cell towers, but it is mostly seamless.
Wifi is really still in its infancy. There are a number of issues and concerns still to be addressed, not to mention the handful of different standards currently available, some of which aren't compatible. One issue is the transition of a Wifi client from one access point to another-- there are still delays and problems in negotiating, streams are dropped, etc, etc. This is not acceptable for devices that transmit voice in realtime, and for any kind of streaming when the device is in motion.
Range is also still a big issue-- while Wifi can reach upwards of a mile with a *very* good antenna, it's still nothing compared to today's cell technology with a decent wireless device. Sure, if there are APs spread out in everyone's home with an open security key it'll work fine for around the city and most towns, but as soon as you hop onto the freeway or something, what then?
Honestly I hope that Wifi takes off as the all-around wireless standard, once these problems are fixed. It means no Telco, no airtime, no busy circuits, and no bill period.
KappaStone
We've all seen the marketing about how wired we'll be in the future, downloading video to watch our favorite TV show at the beach etc... . But I've never seen any predictions how much this is going cost the end user. The cell carriers are fighting for market share and not making too much now, deploying 3G is going to cost a LOT of money (huge piles). I think that they expect the usage will go up, but I'm paying something like $40 for 600 minutes (weekdays, free nights and weekends yada yada yada). Seems to me that if rates stay the same and my usage goes up by a factor of 2x or 3x then the bill is going to go up 2x, 3x or worse. Thats 600 minutes = 10hrs month, a phone call from a good friend can easily take an hour, so 10hrs/month can get used up pretty fast. Surfing the WWW can waste hours and hours (didn't get to bed till 3:20am because I had an idea that I wanted to research and lost track of time, following all the links on Google looking for the right info).
I have a suspision that 3G is going to be more than 2/2.5G cellular and its only really usefull if its always avialable so I would want to use a lot more minutes but I'm not that interested in signing up for a plan thats >$40, maybe a little more but I'd need a lot more than 600 minutes. I see 3G getting quite a few "early adopters" then quickly declining as people economize.
Wi-Fi is for $1000 PCs, cellular is for $100 phones.
Wi-Fi is for broadband data, cellular is for voice and, at best, low bandwidth video on tiny screens.
Wi-Fi has a short radius and an IP address, cellular towers are ubiquitous and compatible with several voice networks.
How can these be said to compete? Sure, you can do a lot of PC-ish things on your dinky cell phone, but you can't do half the things a PC on Wi-Fi can over a cellular connection. The cost-per-megabyte is only half the issue. It'll be a long time before mobile phone networks can approach the bandwidth of wireless networking, and by the time they do Wi-Fi will have leapfrogged to a whole 'nother level.
There's a lot of growth in the buck-a-minute world of cell phone downloads and uploads. People are getting innovative, too -- I've seen blogs composed mostly of photos with some short text uploaded from people's phones, and my wife uses hers as an organizer, storing names, phone numbers, addresses and alarms. As more and more phones are sync-able with people's PCs, they'll become more popular as MP3 players as well as download tools.
So this is cool, although we all know there's a plateau out there somewhere and several phone companies will crash hard when they run off the edge of it. But so what? Wi-Fi won't lose marketshare to phone makers because it can do so much more (bandwidth, public hotspots) and so much less (limited radius, hub tied to a physical landline). There's overlap, but it's less than the article implies. Until cellular phones can do everything a laptop PC can do -- and with those tiny screens and thumb-only keyboards, that's not too likely -- there's plenty of room for both.
I believe you will see devices that do both. WiFi's advantage is bandwidth. 3g cellular's advantage is coverage. The casual travler can get away with WiFi in Hotels, airports etc. Serious road warriors will need both. So there you have it, Hi Bandwidth / Poor coverage vs Low Bandwidth / Good Coverage. On cost, WiFi wins hands down on cost, but cost is relative to business need.
"Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it" Richard Feynman
The one thing you are missing here is relative scales. Cellular products working on 900mhz or whatever are just the same sorts of antennas that WISPs use. I worked on the deployment of a NAN in downtown Toronto and the technology of WiFi is equally viable as throwing cellular antennas up on towers. There are a couple of actual issues here.
1) Tower space is very expensive. The room for antennas is quite limited for new WiFi installation (on the same scale) as 9xxmhz or other cell equipment generally occupies the ideal antenna locations. Additionally the LOS requirements of 2.4+ghz WiFi make this a little bit less ideal than does lower frequency (thus better penetrating) technologies.
The lack of open source or even inexpensive management and network operations software / hardware make it less feasible (at the moment) than cellular. Just the general lack of cheap units with dual radios makes long range roaming fairly impossible. This will change in the short term, provided that WiFi doesn't go the route of cellular and become a per-minute per-packet large-corp-only business.
The real advantages of WiFi come with its robustness as well as its bandwidth potential. Once you start using Technologies Everyone SHOULD use But Don't(tm) like ipsec you start to have somewhat higher bandwidth needs. Because larger bandwidth with present technology =! higher costs (in fact SHOULd equal lower costs if it wasn't for strong telco resistance) little things like crypto and routing overhead should not make a difference. Nor should p2p traffic, streaming, etc.
The BIG advantage of using WiFi or mixed WiFi / hardline service with good QoS and intelligent ToS / cost-based routing / p2p filtering (i.e. slow down foreign packets / encouraging mature protocols (i.e. torrent, edonkey) is that the major costs of P2P become much much easier to swallow. Hint: multicasting p2p over WiFi is *really* efficient. = )
For those out there who have $100K/year jobs -- a economically unsustainable and generally damaging concept in and of itself -- go ahead and blow your packet charges on cellular. Enjoy 19.2k connections.
For those who still have a glimmer of the spirit of WiFi, the spirit of a free internet and people who enjoy being able to downloads hundreds of gigs a month of whatever they please -- WiFi has much, much MUCH more potential.
Gregory
--- ask me about nihilism, I will have nothing to tell you.
The cell phone is an adaptation of a device that was originally intended for voice communication, and no matter what Nokia, Sony/Ericcson, et. al. do, it's still a fish riding a bicycle. Or, to use a Star Trek metaphor, cell devices are communicators and WiFi devices are tricorders.
Gimme the WiFi!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
There was a great article in Business Week about this about a month ago, where the inflammatory title was something about whether WiFi would be the death knell of 3G(UMTS)
/when/ UMTS actually sees the promised bitrates, of course.
They listed the strengths of 3G as being integrated security models throughout the network and a wider distribution via antennas.
So, the two technologies are parallel; separate-but-equal if you would. That's
But the really big thing coming down the pipe is mobiles which talk GPRS/UMTS in-network, or can speak WiFi to other mobiles in order to gain access to *their* GPRS/UMTS network.
Integrate the two that way, and you're never more than a couple of feet (if) from a digital network.
This is the key to the issue.
Do you want to use the internet while driving? Not so much. Maybe only to get directions; the amount that cell phones provide on their basic (read: not very profitable) services.
Other than that, you want to use it in places you work, your home, and places you think/eat (such as restaurants). Considering the cost, it is not unlikely for restaraunts would put in 802.11b if they thought it would earn them customers, as it well might. As far as work and home, the same is true - it's often a cheap feature to add to an environment, and it's getting cheaper a lot faster than the other method.
It seems to me that "surfing" in it's usual sense is reserved for wi/fi alone.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
This is quite true as Wifi coverage and Cellular merge.. I have Mobile IP for Birdstep implemented so all my users can roam from wifi to cellular to LAN..
Verizon (data) + wifi+ LAN+ Mobile IP... seamless transition from one to another...Give it a try you will be in data heaven ïS
Please don't even mention putting 802.11b in restaurants. It's bad enough I want to punch someone in the nuts everytime their god damn cell phone rings and they start to hold a conversation, I don't need them typing comments away on slashdot or browsing porn while I'm trying to eat lunch. Believe it or not, your head will not explode and you will not die if you go without communications access for upwards of 24 hours. I know, I've done it successfully and I'm still here to tell about it.
I fucking hate dumb asses who try and say one technology is better than another completely different technology.
The other fuckin day there was some dumbass spouting about how Bluetooth is dead, and will give way to WiFi. Get a fuckin clue! WiFi won't replace cellular until VoIP takes off. Cellular won't replace WiFi... ever! They have totally different uses and purposes.
You guys are so fucking dumb for posting/reading/discussing this article!
wifi != cellular != bluetooth != irDa
...because there isn't enough use to actually impact anyones bandwidth costs YET. As soon as you start trying to use IP phones and such, the upstream providers are going to have to start charging the people using the bandwidth more, and those costs will trickle down.
Now, infrastructure costs may be less with 802.11, or at least the perceived cost to value is less... but there are downsides to that as well (availability, performance, reliability, upgrades, etc.)
Of course, as bandwidth becomes cheaper.......
--D
You have to pay a monthly fee for your Phone, all I need is a laptop and a wireless card and the desire to search for hot spots. Not saying it's for anyone, but Wi-Fi is not going away any time soon.
I've had a WiFi LAN in my house for a year now and I loved it, even though I was restricted to 56k dialup. This summer, my neighbor bought a Lynksys base station and asked me to configure it. When he did, I asked him if he would like to split his DSL and I would gladly pay half. He agreed and after a little reconfiguring I finally have a fast connection.
He showed me his neato Erikson phone while I was there. It gets email. Weee!
You're not one of us then!
WARNING WARNING! Non-geek in the room! Everyone head to a decontamination station. Evacuation in 10... 9... 8...
I will not use an 802.11 hot spot in an airport, for example, because Vision is good enough (10k BYTES/second -- think 2 B-channel ISDN) but I certainly switch to 802.11b when I'm at home. I think the random hot spot business is a dead end especially when the fee is $10/day or worse and the security sucks. Vision costs $80/mo unlimited. That's 8 hotel nights and/or visits to hot spots for those of you on the road. Verizon's unlimited data is a similar deal.
So... if I had to give one or the other up of the wireless services, I'd give up 802.11 and live with a wire at home. The best part is I don't have to, so all sorts of possibilities are possible. Both have their place, but cellular data works an awful lot of places and really is good enough for most of what we all do.
-- Multics
Plain and simple. If you are a "subscriber" to the telco's cell plan, you are governed by their rules of service and you become one of the herded consumers.
I view this move as a means of wresting control for content distribution and access out of the hands of individuals (access point owners) and into the hands of the mega-telcos. This move also makes it easier for General Ashcroft and the 245th lawyer brigade to monitor traffic and intercept whatever they want. It makes it easier for the phone providers to track your usage, thereby creating yet another product for them to sell to marketers. It delivers to them, the means to target advertising to your mobile device. In short, it puts the consumer back into the "cattle shute" of the big ISP's, where everything becomes an adult playpen, sanitized and appropriatly marketed.
Wi-Fi now, is by definition, run by the person who sets up the access point. This person controls whether it is open or encrypted. This person controls who may access it. This person is responsible for what content may or maynot be distributed through their access point. Having this power in the hands of the individual allows for cool things like "wireless communities" and free hotspots. Whatever the individual chooses. If you don't like it, you can set up your own for less than $150.
On the other hand, if the Cell providers can convince enough people to move to their networks, they can become the standard and can dictate terms of "acceptable use" which, without an viable alternative, become a means of "toll booth" and "restriction."
Ask yourself whether the telcos would allow you to set up a wireless server using their network. This can be done now with an access point and some simple gear...I've seen the handheld wireless webserver here on Slashdot before! Do you think the telco's would allow you to set one up for others to access with their phones?....Think again, we've also seen this week how MS and the phone providers are attempting to create new standards for data transmission between wireless devices...why would that be, when MP3's seem to work fine?...It's the same old practice of creating something propriatary to wrest control out of the hands of the consumer, and put it back into it's rightfull hands...the mega-corps.
It's not that I don't like alternatives, I like them a lot, we just need to keep technology open for people to use in any way they deem appropriate. Wi-FI has grown precisely because it put all the power in the hands of the user. We've seen some pretty weird stuff coming out of many of the users too, stuff that the manufacturers never dreamed of. Don't let the Telco's put that back in the bottle.
The customers probably don't want metered anyway- they're generally more comfortable with flat pricing where they know what they are paying for- if the provider wants to traffic shape them if they start getting greedy- that's usually fine too.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"People are going to pay for a network attachmen(t) they can *use*, not a service for downloading Hello, Kitty skins for their cell phones.
But what I can USE *IS* a service for downloading Hello, Kitty skins for my cell phone! That would be so rockin' awesuuuume!
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
Wi-Fi reminds me of P2P and Linux. Great technologies that "Wall Street" (i.e. the business world) ooohed and aaahed over for a while, then realized there was no way to make that much money off of it. There is no special "wi-fi" connection for ISPs to sell for high rates to consumers. The equipment has become dirt cheap. Sure T-Mobile is charging for hotspot access, but even that is proving tricky (the Starbucks near my old office had big problems when people realized that the random "laptop cafe" next to it was not charging for wi-fi.) Maybe Intel can make a few bucks with Centrino, but its the processors that are the stars of that technology, not the built in wi-fi (as the tv ads suggest.)
So now that the business world realizes that wi-fi is becoming ubiquitous, yet nobody is making much money off of it, the pundits will start coming out of the wordwork. Microsoft (which in all fairness helped usher in wi-fi by building in controls for it in Win XP) will probably try to add more "security" for it so that "the corporate world feels more comfortable with it" and to prevent "wi-fi piracy" but by the time they get around to this (Longhorn?), it will be way too late.
Now if only I could get my Belkin card to work on Linux...
There are two simple points here, it seems to me...
1. Price
Sending a byte anywhere across my cable modem costs $0.000000019. Sending one across my GPRS cellphone here in Canada costs me 0.00025 per byte, which makes cellular technology 13,421 times more expensive! Yes, thirteen thousand TIMES more expensive. And 3G is not showing signs of being cheaper. The cell companies have billions in licenses to recover. The 13,421 times difference (that is an 1.3 million percent margin) seems like highway robbery to me.
2. "Getting it". The cell companies have shown no sign of getting anything. They appear to think we are still in the circuit switching age, And have you check cell gprs/wap "content"? One line new headliners updated about once every 48 hours, and cost $0.25 to read? Ther should realise they are thyere to connect us to whatever we want to connec to, not to interpret/provide.
No doubt this will all be solved in the end and we will all have long range wireless, but not until the old telecoms guys are all long retired.
Mike (an ex telecom guy myself, ask me about papertape for loading phone switches years after PCs were introduced!)
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
run your own web or mailserver through cellular toys? How about join/play a net game like RTCW, Team Fortress, etc?
There's a bit more to networking than what can be done with even the fanci-schmanciest cellular toybob. Since there won't be any DSL or cable coming in my lifetime into my area, Wifi is about the only other possibility. Cellular network access it WAY pricey even it it would work. No thanks. Cellular may have a place, but that place isn't as a replacement.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Wi-fi will be 'next dot.com crash'
Let me start by saying that I am the Sr. Wireless Data Applications engineer for one of the top three cellular handset OEMs and have implemented numerous handsets currently on the market with both 1XRTT and GPRS data capability.
The idiot that wrote this article for Business 2.0 would appear to be vying to be the next Walter J. Mossberg (Wall Street Journal alleged Technology writer) in that he has absolutely no clue of what he's talking about, and proves it by comparing apples to oranges.
The 1XRTT technology currently rolled by CDMA carriers varies in speed (due to network traffic, implementation and other factors) from 40-105Kbps.
GRPS implementations can't make V.90 speed in a testing lab. To try to compare these to 802.11b or any other 1Mbps+ technology is ludicrous, much less predict that they will pass faster technologies by.
"4G" cellular services (3XRTT, W-CDMA, 1xEV, EDGE, UMTS, whatever)will likely never roll out, as carriers don't have the cash to improve existing network bandwidth as it is in the current environment, and these technologies aren't near as cost-efficient as 802.11b/f/g in terms of infradstructure costs.
A more likely future scenario (and part of the thrust of the actual changes in Windows Mobile/PocketPC 2003 or whatever Chairman Bill is calling it this week) PLUS the goal of the Cometa troika (IBM+AT&T+Intel) is ubiquitous 802.11b coverage with FALLBACK to 3G cellular service for converged devices.
Try a technical journal, rather than a business publication, for INFORMATION rather than ignorant trpe!
Cellular has such a massive coverage area and number of towers. Anyone who thinks WiFi is going to surpass Cellular doesn't have clue as to the infrastructure needed to support a mobile network. Sure, cellular companies are like slow moving telcos. You can't push oodles of bandwidth yet, but the sites and network infrastructure are there. 802.11 is no match for the billions of dollars invested in the 90s on cellular and the standards that have been developed.
The hype factor with WiFi is so much higher than cellular and people with Pringles cans get excited and think 802.11 is the answer to everything from national networks to world starvation. 802.11 was an indoor LAN protocol that got stretched beyond what it was intended to do. Sure, 802.16 addresses some of this, but still the frequency allocations and necessary regulatory protection to create a national mobile network with unlicensed technology just isn't there.
802.11 is better suited for hotspots, but remember when Cellular was only for use in vehicles ? Now people use it in place of their home landline phones. Hotspots are merely fads, cellular will stomp on 802.11 hotspots, just watch.
Cellular is a tortoise and WiFi is the hare in the mobile data race. Slow and steady wins this race...
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Pretty much every major carrier... T-Mobile is podunk. Look at the maps. I did.
I don't think so!
l e.php/22 25411
See:
http://www.80211-planet.com/columns/artic
for where I'm coming from.
The short version is that 3G delivers poor real-world data performance and is extremely expensive to deploy. Wi-Fi, of course, doesn't have much range. So it is that many phone companies are now looking into deploying Wi-Fi. The real answer, and carriers and handset vendors are moving in this direction this isn't just analysts, will be dual Wi-Fi/Cellular devices.
Steven
In all seriousness? Plenty of people. That is why most middle to high end GSM phones have tri-band. Do not underestimate the number of business travellers who travel regularly from Europe to North America and back again...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
WiFi = big fast and anythings you want, and you'll probably have a keyboard with that too. I use the internet for significantly more than browsing, in fact, if I needed it just to browse the web, I'd have kept my direcway dish. I need the upload, the input, and the file storage capabilities that come along with a PC, and usually that means I'd want WiFi, not cellular, which to date is still a shitload slower. (see http://www.verizonwireless.com/express_network/ind ex.html)
Speak for yourself.
*The Express Network is capable of data speeds bursting up to 144 kbps, delivering average speeds of up to 40 to 60 kbps (http://verizonwireless.com/express_network)
Speak for yourself.
I hope not because the future we all dream about cannot be acheived on a metered internet with vertical service offerings/apps. What is really needed is always available high speed internet everywhere. On this various free and commercial offerings and usages will flourish just as on the wired internet. I can only see the cellular alternative as a stopgap to pay for creating what we really want. I don't see it as reaonable that we should have to pay out the nose indefinitely or that our capabilities should be drastically limited indefinitely because of the earlier now obsolete notion of selling chunks of bandwidth for ultra-high prices.
While it steps outside my generally Libertarian principles to say so, I believe what is needed is indeed a wired and wireless Information Superhighway throughout all nations where it can possibly be accomplished. This is the basic wiring for a global economy, information sharing, communicating mind. It should not be killed dead by nickel and diming in its infancy.
Low speed cellular comms is everywhere, but high speed technology like 3G is generally only available in more densely populated areas.
The fact that the data is going to your IP address means that it can be metered. Put the meter on the router than ships it off to the transmitter. Afterall, someone has to be the gateway betwen the transmitter and the receiver. Can't be metered my left testicle. You all need a lesson in networking if you're saying that.
Speak for yourself.
There's nothing inherently impolite with chatting on a cel phone in a restaurant, just like there's nothing inherently impolite with chatting with another person in a restaurant. The only difference is that with a cel phone you can only eavesdrop on half the conversation. Of course, people do stupid things with their cel phones, but that's not an inherent problem.
Likewise, there is no inherent difference in politeness with using a laptop in a restaurant and using a book/notebook in a restaurant, besides the fact that laptops are clickier.
I do see the charm in having restaurants be places well people eat, period, but that's not how the universe works.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Within 6 months (if not sooner) you will be able to buy a cellphone with wifi -- it's mostly a software upgrade anyway with the modern chips.
Now that's a product will cause some interesting shifts in the market.
The limited amount of news and info I have on the subject seems to suggest to me that with the 3G standards effort a total mess (what does 3G truly mean, anyway?) it will slowly die out. As it does 802.11 tech will continue to become more widespread and evolve.
I see descendents of present 802.11 standards merging with cellular, as cell companies realize that their mixed systems of digital phonecalls and data can be much better, and more economically managed in a Voice-over-IP infrastructure.
Far-far ahead, I think the phone system in its entirety will evolve into a far more flexible data pipeline system, with the major telcos providing national and regional backbone networks, and many others providing various other a variety of connection options to the backbone. You'll cease to have a phone jack in your home, and instead have a multipurpose communications jack. Unless you're on some sort of wireless link.
Some cable companies are already offering VoIP phone service over their newly laid down cable Internet infrastructures. It's a good thing.
Cell companies could use the shakeup and breath of fresh air a proven standards like 802.11 and VoIP could bring. Should make voice and data blend more seamlessly behind the phone.
USNG: 14TPU4605
If you ever attempt to punch ME in the nuts because something rings, you will leave in an ambulance.
If people are typing or looking at porn while your chatting or eating, it's probably a sign that your unintersting or anti-social. I would err on the side of anti-social since you have urges to punch people in the sac (that or your just gay).
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
seriously, do you folks think that a cell phone has, or ever will be allowed to handle the throughput that is required to browse faster than....i don't know...slow. I agree the ability to bluetooth from your phone to your comp is a cool trick...but more for synching your address book. WiFi gives you 12 or 54 meg as opposed to the equivalent of a 56k dialup. They're both going to be owned by "service providers" that are going to want to molest you with bills and it's my personal opinion that if I'm going to be touched inapropriately I sure better be getting a service designed to allow me to use my fast CPU.
Don't mean to rant, but damnit....internet over cellular as a first choice for a travelling connection??
PWM
Today I can go anywhere in North America that has either GSM or CDMA coverage and get flat-rate, unmetered data access. If I'm on GSM it costs me $20 a month (T-Mobile). If I'm on CDMA it costs me between $50 and $80 depending on the company.
CDMA and GSM coverage is *vastly* more prevalent than WiFi hotspots. WiFi deployment is unlikely to even come close to cellular deployment in the forseeable future (especially in North America) because of the huge deployment costs involved.
Regarding speed, GPRS is slow right now, but the CDMA equivalent is plenty fast enough for reading email, chatting by IM, and downloading web pages. While the Slashdot crowd may want to download MP3s 24/7, the reality is that most folks just need e-mail and web access.
To see the FCC open up more of the 2.4GHz band for unlicensed use under 4 watts. Right now it ranges from 2.4-2.5GHz, but as far as I know the FCC could expand that.
That way there would be more then 3 non-overlapping bands for 802.11b/g. This alone would alleviate a great deal of the wireless congestion.
802.11a has 8 non-overlapping bands in the 5GHz range, but signal propagation problems make it unfeasible for many wireless applications.
The real point though has been touched on by many people here. Cellular and Wi-Fi, in most cases, are not in competition with one another. They are used for different purposes and can happily co-exist.
Wow, that's cheap!
:-)
My first month with Optus (an Australian mobile phone carrier) set me back (just for the GPRS part of the bill) A$126 for 6 megabytes. Yes, that's right, six (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) megabytes cost me A$126 (about US$70-80). You practically got your data for free if that's all your paying! They also charge in both directions!
Mind you, having an always-on Internet connection from where you are anywhere on Earth is a great concept, I find so convenient to grab and send e-mails whenever, but spams freak me out, and big e-mails freak me out (but my phone checks with me first before she downloads 'em).
But, with GPRS if you go easy on it, it's great! From the taxi, from the ski-fields, from the beach, I can send an SMS for A$0.25c (160 characters) but for same cost I can send a much longer (say, 1000 characters) e-mail to multiple recipients.
The prices in Oz won't drop anytime soon, phone companies are probably worried about canabalising their voice market (if the GPRS data rate drops by a little over half, then you have an incentive to develop software that will run voice over the GPRS network). Phone companies aren't evil, they're just not stupid!
Cya!
M.
You are a little confused.
Cellular is already a ubiquitous technology in some places, notably the pan european GSM coverage allowing you to roam across Europe with a single handset and seamlessly make and receive calls from new carriers. I'm sorry that the United States never achieved this - we've enjoyed it for a few years now.
802.11x protocols were not designed for roaming - they are primarily wireless LAN products, they don't include sophisticated power modulation, directionality, handover and numerous other things. The fact that 802.11 hotspots have taken off is more of a grass roots effort from the ground up, by taking a technology and trying to turn it into something else, rather than designing it from top down to satisfy the requirements. I think wi-fi is in some ways a poor man's 4G.
4G is basically high speed and low speed adaptable always connected pure data roamability and heterogeneous device connectivity with power and directionality and bandwidth management and so on. This is a step beyond 3G (obviously, by its name). There is no 4G available, nor any standards nor any clear definitions: it's just a rough sort of location in the technology roadmap, somewhat like transparent object distribution and computing is today (i.e. that goal were you can use computing services and objects on "tap" from all over, and local applications and web services merge to become a sort of sea of computability).
The problem with trying to build a large scale wi-fi network is simple that wi-fi was not designed to be such a network. Don't use apples when you need to use oranges! wi-fi will continue to work and become popular as a hotspot technology, but don't expect it to include the kinds of sophistication that you see in WLAN and 3G technologies. Better to design a real 4G protocol (i.e. in the same way that the Internet Protocol is now the ubiquitous network layer protocol that succeeded past all others [osi, x.25, etc], then 4G protocols could become the ubiquitous wireless protocol that suceeds all others [umts/3g, wlan, wi-fi, etc]. Don't expect this to occur for 5-10 years or so).
In the mean time, move to a region in the world where companies agree on standards rather than trying to use them as a competitive weapon.
While I'm a computer/technology junkie, very few people in my street share the same values.
The majority of computers in my street power the fuel injection systems in peoples cars. Most have seen the internet and have little or no interest. When they need some information, they visit me or someone else.
So what does this have to do with the article/discussion? Well most houses have at least one mobile phone, most have two or three.
Till computers are a disposable appliance (yes mobile phones are disposable, because most throw their old ones away) and "just work", without need for constant software fixes and worries about virii, etc. MOBILE PHONES will rule.
WiFi is cool, but who is going to create networks in neighbourhoods? Not to mention the nightmare of maintaining such an enormous infrastructure. When there is no money to be made, or people are losing money, the best intentions soon wane.
Companies will stop making products they are losing money on, or are taking profits. Governments will also want to cash in on the action. Basically, at the end of the day, you'll have to pay!
I have a SprintPCS (Samsung N400) cell phone and a data cable for my laptop. I can get laptop TCP/IP connectivity in any coverage location and unlimited data access. The connection is high latency but has decent throughput, enough to check e-mail, use the web, use 'ssh', etc. Works with Linux too. It's made a big difference in my working lifestyle. The web browsing experience direct via the phone is still a limiting experience, but I think that will improve as more web-apps are deployed by various companies.
I have 2000 anytime minutes shared between my phone and my girlfriend's phone (she talks a lot), unlimited calls to other SprintPCS phones, and unlimited data access for about what I started paying two years ago for my old single-non-graphics-cell-phone WAP-enabled device. The price and data rates will only get better over the next few years.
OK, the rest of us free people will make sure to pay attention to your Bubble O' Silence and shut the hell up anytime we're near you.
Would you please let me know everywhere you're going to be this week, so I know not to make noise there?
You are an exceptionally rude human being if you expect everyone around you to conform to your idea of a peaceful lunch.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
If you want to experiment with a new idea in networking, and you're on the Internet, just park a machine on the net with an open port, and try it out. You don't have to get anyone's permission
Cool! But... I have to already be on the internet to do this? And the only way I get to be on the internet is through an access point. And who controls the access points?I work for a mobile operator and the following is why wifi will win cellular as it is now.
1) Wifi is a lot cheaper than 3G, etc.
2) Use of Wifi is not just open to mobile operator's, meaning that if devices (like phones) support Wifi, the market will be blown wide open and mobile operator's will have to compete with any company willing to enter the market. Mobile operator's will be not much different than an ISP is now.
3) If a user uses GPRS or any high-bandwidth cellular technology, they use up bandwidth that could have handled lots of calls and sms. Thus although operators hype about these technologies they would rather prefer you not use them, thus these services are more expensive. The more expensive they are, the better alternative Wifi will be.
The operator where I work sold lots of 7650's, but do not allow you to use IMAP to read mail. Why, because they make less money that way. On the other hand they worked their way into M$'s ass because the CTO thinks "Powerpoint will sell phones". Now they allow you to access exchange in order to sell SmartPhones which no-one wants to buy... The laws of Economics do not appy to M$.
802.16 will kick cellular's ass... or at least that is the battle of the future... not 802.11x
Cellphones permeate walls and 'wrap' their signal through windows more than 802.11b does partly because they operate on a lower frequency.
Some cellphones are still running on 900Mhz which definitely propogates better than higher frequencies will.
Consider LW radio - a single transmitter can cover a continent!
When the cell networks move to 3G they'll also move to a higher frequency. Unless they increase the number of base stations (and survive the soccer mom rampage) then they'll surely have poorer coverage.
Bluetooth encourages heavier usage with laptops and PDAs. Most current GSM/GPRS data plans discourage heavy usage with exorbitant charges. T-Mobile is leading the way with their revised data plans. Maybe they'll start a trend that AT&T, Cingular and the other GSM carriers will follow.
(USA centered post)
Except that, you're wrong. Sector, yagi, parabolic, omnidirectional, and other varieties of antennae both linear and circular polarized, are made for all the available unlicensed bands. Not to mention amps and special antenna arrays.
I've worked as an installer for 3 different companies that use 2.4/5.3 and a wide variety of antennae and client devices to create ubiquitous coverage. And it can be done considerably cheaper than G3.
Whoever modded this guy up needs to read past slashdot posts and be more familiar with wifi.
WAN like this maybe? (puts pinky to corner of mouth) Hmmmm?
Do you want to have the capacity do whatever you want? Or only what other people let you?
Cellular is the way to go if you only ever want to do what the big corporations let you, and as a bonus you get to pay through the arse for the privelage.
Wireless is the way to go if you want to do whatever you want, and you'd like to keep your hard earned cash in your pocket, thank you very much.
So I'm connected all the time. The Sidekick is my lifesaver on the bus and I get wifi at school, work, and at home.
Personally, I can't see these technologies converging. There's no way in hell 3G will be as affordable as a wireless AP plugged into a LAN. Heck, I could get GPRS (what my sidekick uses) on my laptop through t-mobile and pay per kilobyte, but I really don't feel like paying a 4 or 5 grand cell phone bill every month. T-Mobile still handles the Sidekick with kid-gloves. Developers simply wont be able to use the WAN connection for anything and bandwidth has always been a bone of contention between Danger and T-Mobile. It is assumed this is why they won't release any new apps for it like an ssh client or rss feed reader. Web, email, and IM is all t-mobile wants to provide. Want more? Buy a blackberry.
The sidekick really does let you surf anywhere; it does feel like a slow dial-up but thems the breaks. I do use it driving on occasion like repling to an IM at a red light, getting directions, finding phone numbers, movie times, etc.
You're right though, the data services simply are not that profitable. If the Sidekick was as popular as a palm then there would simply be no unlimited data plan anymore. All those users would be co-opting the cell network and t-mobile would be forced to throttle everyone down and charge them per kilobyte like they do with the GPRS cards.
I give up -- someone get me when Elvis is back.
I give up, some one get me when Elvis returns...
There seems to be some slight misunderstanding of the intended uses for wlan / 3g networks. You would allways use wifi when that's available (= you have your laptop with you and you have connectivity: e.g. at the airport or at you companys wlan network or at some public location in the city etc).
For example Nokia provides combined wlan/gprs pcmcia cards. When you step out of the wlan network the card automatically switches to gprs. The card uses the cheapest / fastest connection that is available. The average business/private user does not need to nor does want to be concerned how the connection works. Sometimes it's slower and more expensive, because the connectivity is not so good. That's it.
Now, the use for gprs in the phones is a completely different thing. You use that when you do not have you laptop with you. For example: last weekend I was at our summer cottage and wanted to check the bus schedule. I used my phones browser to do that. Again, other typical uses might be that I'm waiting for something (e.g. that bus): I just pick up the phone and browse the daily news to kill time.
If I have something that's difficult to do with the phone's capabilities, I of course use a computer for that. The difference is that I have the phone with me 99.99% of time. The laptop is at hands reach maybe 50% of time. Even then I have to wait fir it to wake up from hibernation and then I need to have a table or I need to sit down to operate it. The phone is on instantly and I can use it while shopping for example.
So: wifi and cellular are complementing each other. Use of cellular does not exclude wifi use when it's more approriate.
Those things exist, but still there is a legal limit of 1 Watt of effective power (meaning measured in the strongest direction, even if the original transmitter is getting less juice) for anything operating in the 2.8GHz band be it a wireless phone or a WiFi device. Anything more is a violation of the part 15 FCC rules.
Most consumer devices are well under that limit, putting out 1/10 to 1/5 of a Watt of transmitting power, so some performance gain is possible... but there's a big difference between setting up a WiFi network that covers a corperate campus, and setting up a "works everywhere" WiFi network that beams all over a metro area. You'd need a trasmitter on practically every lightpost to make that work, and that's just about as expensive of getting a cellular license and doing it the right way.
I didn't even have to read the article. I only need to look at the charts to figure out that this is an Apples to Oranges comparison. I will let all the Finance and Economic Professional detail this one. I can't waste my time.
Oh, are there differing degrees of 'ubiquitous'? I think not.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."