Slashdot Mirror
Working Toward Roaming For Wireless ISPs
hrhsoleil writes "In the category of: This seems like a no-brainer and why-didn't-someone-do-it-before,
according to SearchMobileComputing, the Internet Protocol Detail Record Organization (IPDR) is pushing a set of specifications that would allow users to roam among different providers' hot spots. IPDR is an industry group that addresses billing issues for wireless carriers -- they've got the Wi-Fi Alliance, Gric Communications, and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association backing them up on this one so it might actually get off the ground. It's about time that wireless ISPs get their act together and make roaming possible. If I can go to almost any bank machine in the world and be able to use it without needing to sign up for a new account, why can't I do the same with hot spots?"
It's great that wireless Internet is moving in this direction, even if it's going to take some time since wireless ISPs aren't interconnected yet. But I'm sure as with many wireless phone companies, providers will charge fifty cents a nanosecond to roam on another provider's network. If your wireless network doesn't reach you, just keep a look out for mysterious symbols on the sidewalk.
You can use your bank card anywhere, because it's a distributed Universal ID system.
Your account includes a bank identifier, and an account identifier, which uniquely points to your pile of cash.
To allow a similar system w/ Wireless, you'd need some kind of 'accepted' universal ID system.... and we've a disussion of where this goes a few months back (see Liberty Alliance and MS's .net Passport)
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
"If I can go to almost any bank machine in the world and be able to use it without needing to sign up for a new account, why can't I do the same with hot spots?"
I just hope that they don't charge me $2.50 everytime I want to use a someone else's hotspot.
Chaos reigns within.
Reflect, repent, and reboot.
Order shall return.
Here's the core problem with interoperability...
Assume that the average contract is $40 a month. (About what it is now) Assume that a big company has a sizable saturation in an area.
Now, assume that a competitor comes into an area and wants to charge $30 per month. Interoperability means that this new competitor can provide the same service as the bigger company yet charge a lower price.
So, there must be fees that the smaller competitor must pay to the larger company in order for this to work. Do you think the larger company will be cheap? Do you think that they will *really* let the smaller company charge $30 and still make a profit?
Whatever this deal is, it'd better be mighty strong.
-Ben
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I could quite easily open an account with the cheapest wISP I could find (say the caniadian one so I can save because of the exchange rate) then use a local wISP for access.
In this case the local WISP would surcharge you and your cheap WISP would pass the surcharge right along to you, perhaps with a handling fee to boot.
This not only prevents the scenario you speak about, but also allows the installation costs of a hot spot to be borne more by those who use that hotspot. If it's hard to get wireless into a particular area for whatever reason, trust me, whatever ISP installs a hotspot will cover that cost or they won't let you on.
cleetus
...because most (W)ISPs don't charge per minute and 99% of all ISP customers would not use an ISP that did.
.com recrations of past bad business plans, thank you very much.
The rest of the economic calculations is left as an exercise to the reader, but here's a hint:
($30/((60*24)*30))/5 where the number "5" represents a median number of WISPs/Hotspots across which a consumer will roam. The end number is less than 1% of 1 cent per minute. The electricity to store the transactions, the paper to print the bill and the customer service representitive to explain the service to the customer cost several orders of maginitude more than will ever be recooped. Stop wasting our time with stuipid post
And if all that weren't enough, there's probably an open access point available near by the doesn't charge.
The real problem with roaming and Wi-Fi lies with customers who try to cheat the system.
I'm not a cell phone expert, but I'm pretty sure a portion of the roaming charges you pay on your cell phone get passed on to the owner of the network you're roaming on. For instance, if you're a T-Mobile customer in a location with no T-Mobile cell, and you roam through an AT&T cell, part of the extra money T-Mobile charges you gets passed on to AT&T. A lot of big cell providers will negotiate roaming charges between themselves, so they can offer lower rates to their customers, and be more competitive than smaller cell providers.
The same would likely happen here. WISPs like Boingo and such would pass on some of the roaming charges to their competitors to gain access to their networks, allowing the customer to roam in the first place. And most likely, they would negotiate for better prices depending on how large their own network is (the more hotspots they operate, the less they have to pay someone else to use theirs). So while competition would drive prices down (which is a good thing), noone will be getting anything for free. At least not until the WISPs have paid off their investment into their infrastructure.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
On some devices, this is already done. From the article:
If you can't do this now already, there is something wrong with the setup of either your accesspoints or your device. Walking around while listening to webradio on your laptop without even a hickup when you switch from one access point to another is everyday reality here.
"If I can go to almost any bank machine in the world and be able to use it without needing to sign up for a new account, why can't I do the same with hot spots?" Well you're comparing public and private and wired and wireless networks, Apples and Oranges. Banks use a private network between each other to communicate transactions and when you use the competitors ATM you get charged a service fee. Part of that goes towards using that private network. And from a buisness sense, it wouldnt be all that great to have your customers wandering around on other's networks yet you're still responsible for whatever they're doing.
Does this mean I can set up a hot spot at my home or business and charge for access? Sounds like a great way to earn a little extra cash...
On the flip side, what if there are two different hot spots covering the same area, but which have different surcharges? Does this roaming system include a way of determining such things? What about a way of selecting the cheaper connection, or forcing a more expensive but better connection, or automatically rejecting connections to hot spots with surcharges that are too high?
The business model here would be for nationwide service providers to pay a modest fee to individual hotspots based upon how many of the providors customers succesfully use the hotspots. care and maintenance of the hotspot is done solely at location, and aside from billing, would be the bulk of the expenses for the providor.
It would be in the best interests of the hotspots to make them accessible to as many providors as possible, including independents.
The problems would be:
-- The hotspots would get money from providors, and no longer have much of an incentive to provide service for free to individuals not affiliated.
-- Both the provider and maintainer of the hotspot would want to keep records of who's using the hotspot.... for billing.
-- Stupid marketing people will think the business model works best as a per-minute or per-megabyte fee, and will fail conssitently until someone wises up and makes things consistently all-you-can-eat
--It wont be free
The benifits would be
-- Your wifi connection would work, more often than not, as seemless hand-off technology would be in the best interest of everyone involved
-- connections would develop a consistency as a multitude of providers do their damdest to make sure they can connect to as many hotspots as possible, and hotspots doing their best to connect to as many providers as they can.
-- Connecting gets easier for the user as everyone wants you using it as much as posible.
--Lots of people make money.
Provide me the free bandwidth and legal immunity from the users of the hotspot, and I'll give you a free hotspot.
We need client-side apps that can handle the complexity of multiple networks. As the WISPs get their server apps together, they'll offer roaming and competing logins in simultaneous geographical areas, in different bands/channels. The overlaps will provide seamless coverage, failover redundancy, and nightmarish complexity. The WISPs will be fully armed with apps to manage their complexity. But if all my client can do is login, and get a bill later, then I'm at the mercy of the providers. I need a client app that tracks all the complex offerings, presenting me with filtered, optimized choices when available, or just logging me in by a formula that *I* choose. And keeping a transaction trail. When the bills come, my dream client SW will diff the transaction logs, and submit complaints that I merely review and "sign". And traffic analysis will let me shop for better plans based on my actual usage history.
Where is the platform for this transaction agent for my "phone"? Let's get cracking in the apps, before the WISPs have completely 0wn3d the space, and we're at their mercy.
--
make install -not war
When ATM's were first started up you could only use the one's from your bank with your card. After a few false starts things got a lot better.
You can't always expect a "new" technology to have all of the answers the moment it starts up.
Many of the wireless access providers complain about not making money. They don't understand I don't want to drive to Starbucks for access, I want it where ever I am (including at home) when I need it.
RAN
Most people's ISP won't let you send via their SMTP server unless you're connected via their servers. If you're roaming and connected via some third party ISP, you won't be able to send mail via thier SMTP server. This is already a problem for people using dialup roaming like iPass.
Will this perhaps cause a rise in authenticated SMTP (allowing people to send mail regardless of from where they're connected, while still addressing ISPs spam-control concerns)?
Do people have better solutions to SMTP while roaming??