Slashdot Mirror


WiFi Hotspots to Cost Wireless Carriers $12B

j.e. writes "Commercial WiFi hotspots and open WiFi networks will take about $12 billion out of wireless carrier revenue pie, says Starategy Analytics. With high prices of mobile data services from wireless carriers, the users are more prone to use a cheap WiFi connection, if one is available."

161 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. In other news by Danimoth · · Score: 5, Funny

    things cost money...

    --
    No smoking sigs indoors.
    1. Re:In other news by White+Roses · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other other news, when given a choice between otherwise highly similar products, consumers will choose to pay less money . . .

      --
      Do not touch -Willie
    2. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In other other other news, when given a choice between buying and 'infringing' of the 'net, slashbots will choose 'infringing'.

    3. Re:In other news by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      in other news, ISPs are paid money by people who provide free wi-fi

    4. Re:In other news by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tap water costs the bottled water industry billions.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    5. Re:In other news by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      In other news, there is no pie missing.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    6. Re:In other news by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      but if you leave your wireless access point open, then (eventually) YOUR internet costs will be raised by your internet provider.

    7. Re:In other news by hhawk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And free air, even the dirty air in our big cities takes probably 500 Billion if not more a year away from the Bottled Air business; there is one.. its just not large.

      That they dont' tell you also, is that data used to be part of my Sprint Plan. Someone they removed it and now want to charge for data; I used 14.4 on Amtrack with my laptop to sync email in 2000; now they have fast speed and they want much more $$$.

      Any serious business user is going to buy a business grade service. Meaning they are using it to make $$$ or the inverse, without it they loss sales, jobs, etc. Everything one else doesn't have a real need and yes, they are NOT going to pay huge sums for it.

      --
      http://www.hawknest.com/
    8. Re:In other news by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      This is a riot.

      Next, they'll try and make us pay to watch American television.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    9. Re:In other news by G-funk · · Score: 1

      In the news at 11: Porsche sues Toyota, claiming that its low priced reliable cars are stealing their revenue, and cost Porsche approximately $2bn in lost sales. Cobb & Co. are said to be organising the largest class action suit in history against the automibile industry.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    10. Re:In other news by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      When you can walk into any shop selling software and see Linux versions of most or all of the titles alongside the Windows versions and Windows is still more popular, *then* we can talk.

      Until then, while the *OSes* may be largely interchangeable, the software is not, and no-one in their right minds uses an OS for the sake of using the OS.

    11. Re:In other news by DoraLives · · Score: 1

      Seems as if the RIAA/MPAA mathematicians and accountants have become quite the in-demand item and are now offering their services to one and all. It's really quite gratifying to see this type of level-headed economic assessment spreading far and wide across this great land of ours.

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    12. Re:In other news by caswelmo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or perhaps... "Small businesses entice customers with free WiFi and see $12B in increased revenue."

    13. Re:In other news by drooling-dog · · Score: 5, Funny
      when given a choice between otherwise highly similar products, consumers will choose to pay less money

      Obviously said by someone who hasn't met my girlfriend...

    14. Re:In other news by metamatic · · Score: 1

      And home fucking is killing prostitution!

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    15. Re:In other news by GimmeFuel · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about the unfair competition between the Sun and the Candlestick makers.

    16. Re:In other news by castanaveras · · Score: 1

      In other news, water recently discovered to be wet, and to flow downhill.

    17. Re:In other news by slittle · · Score: 1

      Now. Mmkay. To. English. Learn. Speak. You.

      --
      Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
    18. Re:In other news by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Or to re-phrase it, wifi has SAVED me money. There's no way I would have payed for a GPRS or CDMA card for my laptop, especially with per kilobyte pricing some companies are fond of doing. I'm so sick of these industry POV articles.

      Everything is a "loss" for someone. Its a gain to others too. That's life. Its time they got used to it. I sure don't hear the wifi equipment people complaining about their huge sales.

      If you listen closely you can still hear the horse and buggy people complain abou this new fangled automocar that is so popular.

    19. Re:In other news by Saeger · · Score: 1

      Then find another girlfriend who isn't interesting in playing the "top materialistic bitch" game. Then again, you probably can't afford (pun intended) to be choosey.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    20. Re:In other news by Saeger · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, the tired old "women like to shop! and I'm a whipped married guy just like you poor saps so lets co-miserate!" joke. yawn. Go watch your King of Queens.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    21. Re:In other news by Alsee · · Score: 1

      In other other other other news, when an issue comes up between infringing or noninfringing, lobbists will choose to buy laws to make it infringing.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    22. Re:In other news by bobs666 · · Score: 1
      Tap water costs the bottled water industry billions.

      That so right, after the venders, with help from the FCC, took our freedom of speech away back in 1894.

      WiFi is all the wireless we are permited to use. if we could have the 1994 banwidth, we could send wireless 10 to 15 kilometers. Given enouph of us slash doters putting up reapeaters, we could have quite the free internet.

  2. Having used Cingular's EDGE plan. by Eunuch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used the EDGE from Cingular wireless data plan. $80 (0x50 dollars) a month! It worked decent but the worst part was the latency. I was getting 1-2 second latencies. Do not try to game with it at all. Yet I'd still like a single everywhere-network rather than dealing with lots of accounts with various wi-fi hotspots. If they could just get the latency down and improve reception (if your cell is showing half power don't even bother with trying data).

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
    1. Re:Having used Cingular's EDGE plan. by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 1

      latency isn't fixable with traditional cellular networks. Have you ever called another cellphone and listened to the same TV show or radio station? The network is much too slow for decent ping times.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    2. Re:Having used Cingular's EDGE plan. by spac3manspiff · · Score: 1

      Wait, so they're charging 1010000b dollars a month?!

    3. Re:Having used Cingular's EDGE plan. by asv108 · · Score: 1

      I was planning on using Cingular's EDGE network with the upcoming Treo 650 and bluetooth DUN, but of course, cingular decided to disable the bluetooth DUN profile on the Treo 650 and rain on my parade..

    4. Re:Having used Cingular's EDGE plan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Haven't tried edge myself but (working for an opco) we have been a bit embarrassed by the latency of GPRS....typically around 800ms, sometimes worse. Also true as you say that you want a good signal level. With the data cards we sell we include an external antennae as the results with the one built into the card are not wonderful

      The good news is that we are seeing much reduced latency with 3G, down to about 200ms. OK, that is still not wonderful compared to a good broadband connection, but is a big improvement.

      But as another response indicates, there are going to be limits to how low we (or rather our suppliers) can get the latency.

  3. Statistics Bullshit by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounds like crap statistics if I've ever heard them. Cost $12 billion is a little different than "Won't make $12 billion because the services are overpriced."

    --
    That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    1. Re:Statistics Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Next you'll be saying that a 48X CD-R drive is different from 48 separate CD-R drives!

    2. Re:Statistics Bullshit by raitchison · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly what I was thinking. When I read the headline I was imaginging that cellular data use was way more popular than I imagined and that WiFi hotspots are eating into that side of the business.

      Just because the wireless carriers projected ridiculous revenue from their own WiFi hotspots that they won't make doesn't mean the carriers are "losing" anything since they never had the money in the first place.

      I have a suggestion for the wireless carriers to "regain" some of the money they never had to begin with. Charge competitive rates for your WiFi services and you will get more of that business.

    3. Re:Statistics Bullshit by TexVex · · Score: 1
      "Won't make $12 billion because the services are overpriced."
      Meanwhile, truckers are starting to buy and use laptops on the road, and WiFi access can now be had at almost any pit stop along their routes at prices that are somewhere between dialup and broadband. Here is a WiFi provider that clearly understands its market. Put the hammer down and watch out for Smokey, yo!
      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    4. Re:Statistics Bullshit by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      If you want to burn 1000 CDs, and don't have a professional solution, 48 single speeds are probably better than a 48 speed, if you handwave the machines required to operate them.

      Why? Because you can stagger the burning and take breaks. Set them in a row, start loading up the blank CDs. By the time you finish loading the end, the first CD will be about 30% done. You can wander off for forty-five minutes, come back, repeat the process. Not only can you do other things, when you decide to quit for the night, you'll have some that get done while you're gone.

      It's a hell of a lot better than a 48 speed, where you have to sit there and swap out CD every 2 minutes, pretending that a 48 speed actually burned at straight 48 speed, which doesn't.

      I'd much rather have thirty minutes of work followed by forty-five minutes of downtime than 20 seconds of work every two minutes.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    5. Re:Statistics Bullshit by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Boy, you got that right. As I see it, AT&T has cost themselves around $600 or so over the last couple of years after they shut down the CDPD service in Central Florida. I understand they want to recycle the analog bandwidth, but they don't seem to understand that I will pay $30/month for unlimited usage 24/7 at 9600 bps, but will not pay the ridiculous metered rates they're charging for GPRS even though it's light-years faster. 9600 bps was fine for e-mail, Usenet, limited web browsing sans graphics, remote telnet/SSH access, etc. A side benefit was the static IP address I got with it, so I could do cool stuff like log travel routes/speeds and such in great detail without having to have a laptop in the car.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  4. An analogy by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "With all these free radio stations people won't buy our records."

    "With all these free movies on TV people won't go to the movies."

    Having said that, cellphone service is nowhere near what it should be in terms of reliability and quality. How many of the main carriers allow you to do what you want with your phone (e.g. bluetooth restrictions in many phones) and your service (forward messages & voicemail via email, etc)?

    Damien

    1. Re:An analogy by rjelks · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm actually posting from my cellphone right now. You can't get much more reliab....[NO CARRIER]

    2. Re:An analogy by nacturation · · Score: 1

      I hijacked your wireless session when I saw you disconnect and finished your post for you. You're welcome.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:An analogy by valkraider · · Score: 1

      A Verizon manager last night told me that they (Verizon) don't cripple any functionality, that it was the Phone manufacturers who crippled it.

      But I did learn that if you make a big enough stink in a crowded store in a mall, they actually start to work with you...

    4. Re:An analogy by linuxtelephony · · Score: 3, Informative

      And what is worse, the effective usability of cell phones is now WORSE than what they were just 4 to 6 years ago.

      Yes, things were still mostly analog, with a few early adopters having digital, but for roaming your analog service was virtually seamless, especially along major interstates.

      I recently drove west along I-10 with a digital phone, and spent literally hours where I could not get a call out. Yes it was in some of the "mountain" areas, but it was an area that used to have analog coverage that worked (because I drove it and know).

      It really infuriates me what they've done. I spent several years building cellular (analog) networks, even in some mountain areas. I know the service is possible in these areas, but since the "new and improved" digital phones include the ability to restrict what services the phones may roam on (and in some cases, the newer phones won't even do analog), we've gone BACKWARDS. It's pathetic!

      --
      . 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
    5. Re:An analogy by kscd · · Score: 1

      A Verizon manager last night told me that they (Verizon) don't cripple any functionality, that it was the Phone manufacturers who crippled it.

      But what incentive would the phone makers have to build a phone with abilities only to cripple them? From their perspective, the more a phone does, the better it sells. I do believe that it is them who cripple the phones, but only because the carriers ask them to.

    6. Re:An analogy by dwillden · · Score: 1
      So your current phone is dual band instead of tri-band. Get a different model.

      The analog networks are still there, and even expanding in some areas of the west where digital just doesn't have the range to be feasible.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    7. Re:An analogy by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that phones these days are tiny and have limited power. It's not like old days when you could pump 3 watts out of a big external antenna plugged into your bag phone, or car phone with a big box in the trunk.

      That was the advantage of all those clunkers... Lots of talk power. You could be out in the wilderness and have loud and clear conversations. Of course, service cost a fortune back then...

      -Z

    8. Re:An analogy by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it. Last week I spent three hours in the median at mile marker 112 on I-95 in North Carolina, in large part because it took forever to get hold of AAA without having the call dropped at some point.

      There's a lot of talk about 911 not working with VoIP - what about 911 and simple cellular, for crying out loud?

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    9. Re:An analogy by vonwilkenstein · · Score: 1
      "Back in the old days...." I agree that AMPS did have better coverage, BUT, the capacity of the network left much to be desired. If the Wireless industry did not push digital services, the service would be almost unusable today due to sheer number of calls made per day.

      Spectrum use is the problem.

      Each analog (AMPS) call requires the use of it own dedicated channel. If AMPS was prevalent with todays wireless usage, the cell sites would be running at full capacity all day long. Sounds like a good thing right? Not so if there are no channels left for when you want to make a call....Fast busy, redial. Also you can't just add more channels, because interference issues with other sites, will degrade the call quality and lead to inefficinet re-use of the scarce spectrum

      I often hear Just get a Tri-Band Phone. I suppose its good advice, but I often find the AMPS tranciever in most modern phones blow. Carriers also will make it difficult for your handset to acually register on the AMPS network. In other words, your digital signal has to be in the dirt for you to even register on the AMPS system.

      Which leads me to my next point. The phone itself is half of the network. A better quality phone usually has a better tranciever. Typically, the better the tranciever, the better the call. If you buy your handset based on the XCVR, you will be much happier in the long run when the novelty of the Camera,PDA, MP3,SMS features wears off.

      Another thing I hear often is my phone sucks . Turns out, they are using the "Free Phone" that they bragged about getting when the signed up. The free phones work, but not as well as a better model that you pay for. You would be surprised at the difference that a handset can make.

      Imagine if you got a P133/16MB/1GB PC free with your DSL/Cable. Assuming you are using your connection like avg Joe uses it today ( emailing pics,Flash,Shockwave, Streaming Vid,etc NOT Lynx, command line apps, etc.) would you blame the service provider for the Poor performance? Probably not because you would throw the PC in your closet or make a Linux router/firewall out of it, and use your PC( or machinne du jour) that is better.

    10. Re:An analogy by linuxtelephony · · Score: 1

      For the record, I have a dual band, dual mode phone and my wife has a dual bnad, tri-mode phone.

      However, both phones suffered the same problems. The old analog phone I had with me (not activiated) had service, and was able to connect to 611, but the carrier I was on informed me that my phone wasn't part of their network and put me into an IVR system.

      I could have dialed 911 if I had an emergency. Definitely on the old analog. And in theory using the newer phones, since 911 calls are SUPPOSED to go out on any carrier the phone can see, regardless of what the IRDB profile stored in the phone says.

      --
      . 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
    11. Re:An analogy by linuxtelephony · · Score: 1

      Here's the catch, 800 MHz AMPS and 800 MHz digital should have approximately the same foot print RF-wise, assuming similar antennas and output power. In the early days of digital, especially CDMA, the (often untrue) claims were that digital would work better in weaker areas. It was a perception, since there wasn't any static, instead the audio would drop out a bit here and there, but there was no static, so it must be better, right?
      As the technology improved, so did performance in more marginal areas.

      I've been out of the biz for a few years, but last I remember, the FCC mandated analog channels remain for a few years. Plus, if I remember correctly, all those On*Star systems in GM based cars are using analog cellular equipment, not digital. At one point it was going to cost about $600 per car to upgrade the On*Star equipment to digital.

      There is still analog capacity out there. Even if it is limited. And, I agree completely about spectrum use being a problem, at least in urban areas. But, there is no excuse for these problems in open rural areas. The spectrum usage should not be as much of an issue as it would be in a medium to large city. If my complaint were in a metro area, I would agree spectrum use would be the issue, but I wasn't. I was a good 2 hours from any major city, if not more.

      Like you said, a good xcvr is the key, as opposed to features. For years Motorola was a great phone. That changed, IMNSHO, in the late 90s, and the last motorola phone I used was crap. Not because of the cheap, flimsy, plastic feel, but phone call quality.

      Finding a good xcvr is half the battle. I have a basic phone, yeah it's got a color display, but it doesn't play mp3s or take pictures, but it's a good phone. My wife's BIG feature is the Speaker Phone. Those are the phones we wanted. I have a Samsung, that until recently, has worked very well (except the rural usage problems I originally commented on). My wife has an LG. It's her 2nd LG, and she's happy with it.

      I'd be curious to hear which phones (and xcvr) others find work really well and have good audio quality.

      --
      . 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
  5. Just so you know.. by Prophetic_Truth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    97.576% of all statistics are inaccurate.

    --
    time is a perception of a being's consciousness
    time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
    1. Re:Just so you know.. by malcomvetter · · Score: 3, Funny

      And 33.23456% are made up right there on the spot.

    2. Re:Just so you know.. by c666hellchild · · Score: 3, Funny

      And 74.3572% are made up on the spot

      --
      -Peace
    3. Re:Just so you know.. by donutz · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure your figure is precisely correct.

    4. Re:Just so you know.. by ReverendLoki · · Score: 1
      And 33.23456% are made up right there on the spot.
      And 74.3572% are made up on the spot

      ... And apparently most statistics carry a margin of error of approximately 41.12264%

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    5. Re:Just so you know.. by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Informative
      > > > > > 97.576% of all statistics are inaccurate.
      > > > > And 33.23456% are made up right there on the spot.
      > > > And 74.3572% are made up on the spot
      > > ... And apparently most statistics carry a margin of error of approximately 41.12264%
      > I'm not sure your figure is precisely correct.

      ...and nevertheless, 100% of us have a better grasp of business reality than the deluded wankburger who claimed with straight face that WiFi hotspots were responsible for a ($12,000,000,000) entry on his employer's balance sheet. What a horrible existence - to be delusional (even by phone company standards), without any of the mind candy of psychopathy and megalomania that come with being part of RIAA or MPAA respectively.

    6. Re:Just so you know.. by ScytheBlade1 · · Score: 1

      I need to shoot whoever modded you INFORMATIVE. Really.

      It's like the Americans and warning labels analogy. Take off the warning labels, let the problem solve itself.

      People who modded you informative....well, let's just say that they bear a special place in my heart :)

  6. Boo Hoo by jgerry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Get a better business model. Or better yet, just go away. Just because people want something, doesn't mean they have to pay YOU to get it. More and more, they may not have to pay at all (open WiFi access points, Linux, etc).

    1. Re:Boo Hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ouch! You sure zinged the wireless industry! Snaps!

    2. Re:Boo Hoo by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      I admit this is techincally flamebait, but it needs to be said:

      To all the wireless companies out there: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Suck it.

  7. Making up numbers is fun! by Superfreaker · · Score: 3, Funny

    $12 billion out of wireless carrier revenue pie, says Starategy Analytics


    Reading /. has cost my company $101 gabozillion dollars in lost productivity!

    1. Re:Making up numbers is fun! by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      But you can wow your managers with the fact that you know wireless hotspots cost $12 billion. So now you look smarter and see an increase in your salary +$20.

  8. Doctor, it hurts when I do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "With high prices of mobile data services from wireless carriers, the users are more prone to use a cheap WiFi connection, if one is available."

    It was also discovered people are more likely to choose chocolate than liver. The remarkable people chose chocolate over liver.

  9. Boo hoo! by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1
    So what? I would love to see the fantasy math and faked statistics that they used to come to this number. Exactly how are you supposed to guess how many potential sales you would have lost in the future? Look at trends and then put a money count of the growth?

    I'm sure the salesmen of horses lost many potential sales due to cars back in the day. Does it mean anything?

    1. Re:Boo hoo! by sr180 · · Score: 2, Informative
      No, you look at how much traffic is now going through the cheaper or free wireless network, and then work out how much it would cost if it was going through your expensive and overpriced wireless carrier. That is how much money you are losing.

      Obviously completely incorrect because people will use it A LOT at the lower price, and almost NOT AT ALL at the higher price. Smells like RIAA and MPAA maths to me.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    2. Re:Boo hoo! by hobbsbutcher · · Score: 1

      Disco record sales from 1977-1979 were up 400%. If these trends continue...Hey!

      --
      Jonathan B.
  10. Don't think so by DustyShadow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I won't buy wireless service from a provider and this has nothing to do with wi-fi hotspots. I've never even used a wi-fi hotspot. The main reason that I won't buy wireless service from a provider is because of the insane price. I'm sure most people are in my boat.

  11. WiFi Hotspots to Cost Wireless Carriers $12B by stendec · · Score: 4, Funny
    WiFi Hotspots to Cost Wireless Carriers $12B

    They shouldn't have bought all those hotspots if they're going to complain about the price! It's amazing how stupid some people can be.

    1. Re:WiFi Hotspots to Cost Wireless Carriers $12B by Nikker · · Score: 1

      True

      Doesn't it seem like the next thing they were gonna say is "that the reason initial prices will be so insanely high?"

      These are companies that are used to making insane amounts of money do you really think they would go this far to do something at a cheap or reasonable price. Ever noticed that the word cheap usually gets a negative implication? Why? because they make you think you are taking food from someones mouth?

      Well just wait these companies and carriers are aware that right now 1's and 0's are traveling via POTS, Coax(cableTV), Sattelite, etc. What happens when they can get it from WI-FI? I would tell my phone CO to take a hike for Vondage or set up Asterix in a hearbeat.

      Repeat after me, they are all scammers....

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
  12. This is step 1 by ENOENT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Step 2 is getting laws against free WiFi accessed passed in Congress.

    Hey, it worked for the RIAA!!!

    --
    That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
    1. Re:This is step 1 by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1
      --
      Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
    2. Re:This is step 1 by lrucker · · Score: 1

      Like in this Kevin and Kell strip: "The Freedom of Ones and Zeros Act"

    3. Re:This is step 1 by Delta2.0 · · Score: 1

      Step 3 Sue all "violators" into non existence

  13. I thought the Airwaves were a Public Trust? by CygnusXII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought the FCC gaurded the airwaves and held them in trust, for the American people? Does Joe and Sally Citizen need for the FCC to auction off the Bandwidth to the highest bidder? I think not. The sad part is all the hobbiest that are gonna get screwed, when the bandwidth they propogate is wanted for some other new technology. All this is is a sign that Joe and Sally Citizen are willing to do some grass roots, initiative type activities and spread the Bandwidth around.Screw the MAN!! so to speak, and for once utilize what is rightfully theirs. I understand that not all WiFi spots are opened purposfully and meant for use, but you cannot say that all of them are not meant to be so, either. I check for available spots before I go on any trips, and I keep Netstumbler and a few other tools with me always.

    --
    My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
    1. Re:I thought the Airwaves were a Public Trust? by recursiv · · Score: 1

      hobbiest?

      Hobby
      Hobbier
      Hobbiest!

      --
      I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
  14. wireless overpriced by dslbrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Poster forgot some words, it should read:

    With the artificially inflated exorbitantly high prices of mobile data services from wireless carriers, the users are more prone to use a cheap WiFi connection, if one is available.

    No sympathy for wireless carriers here, now they get to suffer for their own bad pricing plans...

    1. Re:wireless overpriced by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think it shows people are willing to pay a "fair" price for poor coverage area than a high price for far better coverage area. Do not forget the coverage area. "Wi-Fi" generally can't do a few thousand feet without a huge antenna on both ends, cell phones often get several miles from any one of the plethora of towers, and the phone end of the antenna is pretty small.

    2. Re:wireless overpriced by Glonoinha · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bingo. I looked into data services on my GSM phone.

      They wanted three cents per kilobtye.
      That's $30 a Meg - are those motherfuckers crazy?

      Download one really good porn avi or mpg and you are talking about $20,000. For $20,000 you should have dozens of real live women delivered to wherever you happen to be using your cell phone, lubed up and ready for sex.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  15. headline should read... by sootman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Wireless carriers will not earn $12B because better options exist."

    Note: you can't lose what you don't yet have.

    Interesting fact: you are not entitled to a profit. If your business model sucks, or if your product is too costly, it will fail. See also: airphones. Remember them? All gone now, because using cell phones (which everyone already has) before and after the flight is good enough.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:headline should read... by j1bb3rj4bb3r · · Score: 1

      And funny that now they've realized this fact (that airphones are dead and they can't make money of it), it's soon going to be ok to use cell phones in flight.

      --
      *yawn*
  16. In other news by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Funny

    In other news, Linksys employees were seen dancing in the streets.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  17. *vroom* by Willow_mt · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm getting the sudden urge to go wardriving...

  18. Outside the US by Datasage · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are some places in the world were gprs is a cheaper option to dialup. For my girlfriend in jakarta, the dialup option charges her for how much time she spends online. While she can get unlimted access via gprs for about $20-$30 per month from indosat. Other than some major latency and connection issues to a couple sites, she can get dialup speeds pretty easily.

    --
    In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
    1. Re:Outside the US by antdude · · Score: 1

      GPRS? Is that satellite Internet like DirecPC? I never heard of this. I am also on dial-up (3 KB/sec) and not able to get DSL (too far or too expensive) and cable modem services. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:Outside the US by Datasage · · Score: 1

      GPRS is the GSM data protocol. It averages at about the same speed as dial-up depending on signal stength.

      --
      In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
    3. Re:Outside the US by G-funk · · Score: 1

      GPRS is Global Packet Radio System. Or in short, TCP over GSM.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    4. Re:Outside the US by antdude · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, thanks. I don't want this then. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    5. Re:Outside the US by nikster · · Score: 1

      the difference seems to be: Outside the US (and Europe for that matter) wireless carriers seem to be able to _learn_ and realize that expensive mobile data options actually bring zero revenue because zero people use them.

      i am using GPRS in thailand for $20 / month flat rate. it's dialup-slow, but also cool because it works in the mountains, on islands, in the car, etc.

    6. Re:Outside the US by stm2 · · Score: 1

      GSM can reach up to 112Kbps, so is up to 2X dial-up. I used that in Argentina, the notebook connected to the GSM enabled phone using the IR port. Nice, and somewhat expensive. But in some areas, there are no more choices.

      --
      DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
  19. Maybe Singular did and Sprint did it too, but..... by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    There are ways around it. There is a product that allows it, PDANet. Also, there is a hack to allow bluetooth to use DUN at http://www.shadowmite.com/.

  20. Re:WIMAX by merreborn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    An open hotspot with WIMAX-class range would attract an awful lot of leachers in any tech-savvy neighborhood. Likeley far more than most residential broadband connections could handle.

    I doubt we'll ever see many free, open WIMAX hotspots. Open WiFi hotspots only really work because the limited range effectively limits the number of people that can leach any such connection to a handful.

  21. What about me? by tyler_larson · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've already lost trillions on my canned-air venture this year alone. I figured that, as vital as breathing air is, people would be willing to pay my reasonable rate of $200 per cubic foot.

    Apparently there's a free alternative that people are taking advantage of, driving my company out of business. How can I undersell free? Better label those free-breathers out there as "air pirates" and start a "get the facts" campaign about the total-cost-of-breathing.

    --
    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
    RFC 1925
    1. Re:What about me? by MAdMaxOr · · Score: 5, Funny

      1/2 liter per breath
      = 0.017657 cu. ft. / breath
      = $3.5314 / breath
      = $42.4 / person /minute
      = $22,273,246 person / year
      = $1.56 * 10^17 / planet / year

      Looks like you lost about 156 quadrillion dollars!

    2. Re:What about me? by databyss · · Score: 1

      I have an idea!

      You can embed SpyAir into the free air programs... this way people will be less likely to want to use the free air and will pay you for your air!

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    3. Re:What about me? by ewen · · Score: 1

      The problem is that a cubic foot of air is too big to easily carry around. What people really want is something about 1/100th of the size.

      Compressed air. It's the new thing I tell you.

      Ewen

    4. Re:What about me? by Please+tell+me+why · · Score: 1

      You need to work on increasing air pollution so the free stuff is not desirable. Then people will start buying the canned air. Oh wait! We are already doing that ...

    5. Re:What about me? by Dreadknott · · Score: 1

      Awesome way to put it! The Telephon/cellular/cable networks have been screwing us for years, about time we all got something for nothing, or at least cheap!

    6. Re:What about me? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      Air pirates?

      "It is I, Don Karnage, speaking to you with my voice! So nice of me to drop in!"

    7. Re:What about me? by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      Look at what you did! You made him cry! shame on you!

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  22. Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Quick, let's start donations rolling.
    What's Verizon's PayPal account?

  23. The missing step!! by gytterberg · · Score: 1

    3) Profit!!!!

  24. Why buy when you can WiFi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having watched many MANY people gleefully tout their new "connected" "enabled" or otherwise crappified phone only to be disappointed by the utter lack of basic service requirements like convenience, reliability, ease-of-use, I can assure you the only thing that's costing them $12B is their lack of those three and a failure to understand what people really want. They want it all and they want it now and they want it free. WIth the proliferation of WiFi hotspots, they can get it... so... you can't sell snow to eskimos... whatever.

    Besides it doesn't COST you $12B when you haven't spent $12B. duh!

    I know. run-on. bad punctuation, but hey, you didn't pay to read this!

    1. Re:Why buy when you can WiFi? by Biogenesis · · Score: 1

      Yes we did, my internet isn't free you know :p.

    2. Re:Why buy when you can WiFi? by Bitmanhome · · Score: 1
      failure to understand what people really want
      On the contrary, they understand exactly what customers want -- newer, more craptastic phones. "10% more reliable" doesn't sell, but "10% more colors" does.
      --
      Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
  25. Probably Makes them $50Billion a year by random+coward · · Score: 1

    In people subscribing to these services knowing that they can use them at wifi hotspots also.

  26. Moderate Insightful by Blackbrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This should be +5 insightful, not funny. It is only a matter of time before some "media friendly" senator attaches a rider to an education package that bans open WiFi access. Or more likely, a Homeland Security bill because Terroists might use open WiFi links in an attack.

    --
    Where would we be if Wheel had hid her round rock in a cave instead of showing everyone how it rolls?
    1. Re:Moderate Insightful by Slashdot+Insider · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's rather un-American of you to be criticizing your own government!

    2. Re:Moderate Insightful by Blackbrain · · Score: 1

      "I know not which mortifies me most, that I should fear to write what I think, or my country bear such a state of things."
      --Thomas Jefferson 1798

      --
      Where would we be if Wheel had hid her round rock in a cave instead of showing everyone how it rolls?
    3. Re:Moderate Insightful by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is pretty sad when a statement like "free wi-fi costs company $12 Billion" is even a headline" Think about the logic for a second. It's like saying "free air breathers cost oxygen tank manufacturers".

      The wireless companies may or may not be charging too much--I couldn't guess at what the overhead is to start up the network. But the real problem is that we have been taught a psychology that companies have any rights at all. If a company does not provide utility, then it should fail in the market. I've made this comment before about the music labels. Through PR and the courts they are trying to prevent obsolescence. If artists can get paid and music is free, then what exactly is wrong with that for the consumer? Will music get worse than it is now? Will concerts end? No, no and no. Companies have to provide a service. They can't say that citizens finding cheaper and better options is unlawful.

      But, I suspect the company to push for legislation to solve the issue, rather than face an actual open marketplace.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    4. Re:Moderate Insightful by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      It is only a matter of time before some "media friendly" senator attaches a rider to an education package that bans open WiFi access.

      Keep in mind that "a matter of time" can refer to any point between right now and the heat death of the universe...

      The sky is not falling.

    5. Re:Moderate Insightful by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      Actually, you have it backwards. Real Americans must always be critical of their government. That is how the system is designed. Failure to be critical results in bad government.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    6. Re:Moderate Insightful by Saeger · · Score: 1
      If you REALLY wanted to get free WiFi banned in the interest of "national security" (but actually in the interest of special interest), then the best way to do it would be to have "someone" plant some bombs in high profile locations where they were meant to be discovered; possibly have a FEW blow up just to make sure peoples' 9-11 knees are a jerk'n. Upon closer examination of the bombs it would be determined that they were to be triggered remotely via anonymous 802.11x. Let the media run wild with the story and a few days later propose the prepared bill.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    7. Re:Moderate Insightful by Hoch · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points. Genius.

      --
      2*31*37*263
  27. Well look at that. by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

    Charge too much for something, and people will find another way to get it.

    I wonder if there are any other businesses that could learn that lesson out there right now?

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    1. Re:Well look at that. by c666hellchild · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.... Microsoft, record labels, movie theaters....

      --
      -Peace
  28. When in Roam by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    This will all come together when we have UMA phones. UMA lets a voice call roam between WiFi and 3G networks seamlessly, like moving between cells on the same network. It might even let a call roam between two overlapping 3G networks, like Cingular and T-Mobile, depending on which one has a cheaper or better signal at the moment. Then our smartphones can be really smart, choosing which network to access based on our own rules (maybe downloaded from a phone blog).

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  29. Misleading title by argent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Should read, "WiFi to save wireless users $12B", or "WiFi to get up to $12B slice of wireless pie".

    Not making as much revenue as predicted is not a "cost".

  30. Oh, come off it. by kapella · · Score: 1

    I'm selling ballpoint pens at $5 each. Each of you should buy them if you need something to write with.

    What, it's too expensive? You can get pens cheaper somewhere else?

    Damn it, you're costing me millions!

  31. How much will the WiFi hotspots make? by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    "Just find an open WAP" is most definately NOT always an option. That said, how much do the Hotspot providers make? I rarely see coffee shops with free wifi anymore. They've all settled on some for-profit wifi service, like jwire or the t-mobile hotspot setups.

    Did I mention that I'm now in the Silicon Valley? Definately not BFE. I have an account with T-Mobile because I know that I'm very likely to find a hotspot when I need one. If there were more free hotspots, I might not really need such a service. Sadly, that's not really the case.

    1. Re:How much will the WiFi hotspots make? by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

      I remember it to be $2b, for 2004, but that might have been 2003. A quick Google search turns-up 10-20 billion.

      --
      Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
    2. Re:How much will the WiFi hotspots make? by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Most coffee shops I see have a sign on the door that says "free WiFi". Several of the mid-scale restaurants[1] around here do too. I'm surprised StarBucks hasn't dropped T-mobile yet, a DSL line is cheap, and an access point is hardly anything. It can't cost anything significant to get it away.

      [1]I'm not sure what to call it really. A step above McDonald's (which is starting to offer this too) or Subway. Nothing fancy where you go for the food quality.

    3. Re:How much will the WiFi hotspots make? by EvilStein · · Score: 1

      Where's this? I don't see any around here. :(

      DSL & WAP = "hey, we can't make money for charging for this"

      Sadly they don't realise that offering up free wifi *does* bring in customers.

    4. Re:How much will the WiFi hotspots make? by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Minnesota. I've seen the same in Wisconsin. Owners here realize that the cost of internet is trivial, and people will buy the coffee.

      Every Panera Bread shop (about the best fast food you can get, which isn't saying much - chicks dig it though so I like to go for the eye candy) has free wi-fi. They are a national chain, but they don't cover most states yet. You might consider opening a franchise.

      Dunn Brothers Coffee also has free wi-fi. I can't stand coffee, but those who like it inform me that it is better than Starbucks.

      Many cafes in the city or near the interstate have it. In the city because business people expect to see it. Near the interstate because truckers look for it. (Near the interstate they often have ethernet at the table for those without wi-fi)

  32. They have this backwards. by hal2814 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lack of decent bandwidth and latency issues are costing wireless plans billions. WiFi's not the best thing on earth, but it sure beats the wireless broadband provided by Verizon. That money didn't belong to wireless providers to begin with. Another alternative could be that lack of hotspots costing WiFi programs billions since users are stuck with wireless in that case.

  33. In other news... by jonniesmokes · · Score: 1

    Bottled water companies lost $112bn to public water works agencies of cities and towns last year! I knew tap water was a communist subversion.

  34. WIFI from the bottom up? by Raindeer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whenever I hear discussions on Wifi hotspots I get the idea that we're building wifi connections the wrong way round. We're building wifi on the open road, that sometimes reaches into our houses/businesses. We could do it from the bottom up, based on the wifi access points in peoples houses.

    How hard would a standard be, which would make it possible to extend the official network of the ISP to a users access point, maybe with a VLAN solution. This way if I open up my laptop and there is an access point available of Joe User, I can only hook up to it by propperly logging in to the ISP's network or use the airport/credit card system. This will require many roaming agreements etc, but it would bring security and convenience at the same time. It should be done in such a way that the person opening up his network in this way can throttle the speed of the guest users and/or the times they can access. So I would like to see a rule like "Guests can only connect when I am not connecting" or "Guests only get 1mbit"

  35. Step 2: legislate.... by rbird76 · · Score: 1

    Why? Then cellular companies would have to compete on price, reliability, and service instead of locking their customers into cell plans and pillaging them. The whole point of cell phone plans is to lock your customers in and beat them silly. Anything that prevents cellular companies from doing that will either be neutered or prohibited; after all, isn't it Congress's job to fund unprofitable industries for their donors^H^H^H^H^H^Hcitizens?

    1. Re:Step 2: legislate.... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Because without UMA, cell carriers will get shut out of the equation entirely, as their customers stay confined to cheaper, higher bandwidth WiFi hotspots for most of our calls. With UMA, they can avoid being relegated back to the days of "for emergencies only", while WiFi VoIP capitalizes on all their $billions in investments in capital and marketing.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Step 2: legislate.... by cheezit · · Score: 1

      You might have noticed that you get a fancy phone "for free" or a small amount when you sign up for two years of service. Hmmm, why is that? It's well known that handsets are sold at a loss and the carriers must rely on contracts to make their loss back and start making money.

      Maybe the evil companies are pillaging their customers....or could it be that customers are attracted to plans like that? I can buy a cheap and good handset on ebay and buy service from some carriers. Why don't more people do that?

      My theory is that people like these plans for the same reason that some people shop for car financing based on monthly payment---they never think of total cost. Companies who want those customers have to compete on those terms.

      --
      Premature optimization is the root of all evil
  36. Aw jeez, it's the RIAA all over again by serutan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll believe wireless carriers lose $12 billion when I see their gross revenue actually drop by $12 billion. As our massive experience with file downloads and other things has shown, many if not most of the people who use a free service either wouldn't use it if it weren't free, or are already paying for the same service from someone else anyway.

    I wish wireless carriers and others would grow up and quit whining when people figure out that their products and services can be had for free.

  37. Maybe Not by SteveM · · Score: 1

    This will all come together when we have UMA phones.

    If only UMA can come together, see here

    SteveM

    1. Re:Maybe Not by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Er, UMA doesn't seem to have 2 competing coalitions, but rather one coalitition of surprisingly cooperative competitors, joining together to compete with WiFi. Unless you've heard of some trouble in paradise?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  38. These are just market forces in action... by nickfrommaryland · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Let's face it, WiFi technology is still in it's infancy. When new technologies come to market, two things happen:
    1. The suppliers of a technology will try to make as much money as possible from the technology.
    2. The consumer of the technology will try and get the technology for as little as possible.

    Take the T-Mobile hotspot, for example. If you plan on using it a lot (and that's a lot of time spent at Starbucks), you can get away with spending a mere $29.99 a month. If you're not so sure, the price jumps to $39.00 a month, but you're free to quit. The price will jump even higher if you move to a per day or per hour plan.

    Now take many local public venues (e.g. libraries, coffee houses, etc.) Many of these places will offer free access for their patrons. We have become quite spoiled by these free hotspots (I know I have, and I will prefer one of these places any time).

    If there are more and more of these public access points offered, we will find more and more that, because of competition and free market forces, the price of WiFi access will plummit, possibly to near-zero. We (the consumer) just need to keep at it. If the technology is not profitable for businesses, wifi may become relegated to the realm of "promotional offer" or "advertising gimmick."

  39. When will companies, governments, etc realize: by tadd · · Score: 1

    That if you didn't EARN the money, you didn't LOSE the money. If I pirate XP, MS lost nothing, 'cuz I ain't gonna BUY it. If I use a wifi hot spot rather that whatever (enter wireless carrier crap du jour here) is ofering, they didn't LOSE money! They failed to make a sale. Why does the public allow concepts like: projections that fall short, missed sales, "losses" due to "piracy", "street value" of drugs and/or goods - legal or otherwise, to be counted on real numbers when they are largely based on fantasy and wishful thinking? Are people really that stupid? (Don't answer that, I already know the answer). But it just makes me want to scream. /end rant

    Thanks for your attention.

    --
    [what?]
    1. Re:When will companies, governments, etc realize: by Cruxus · · Score: 1
      If i pirate XP, MS lost nothing[...]

      Your piracy example is a poor choice, in my opinion. You are essentially presented with four choices: (1) Purchase Microsoft Windows XP legally; (2) get an illegal copy of Windows XP; (3) use a product other than Windows, such as Debian GNU/Linux, Fedora Linux, FreeBSD, or the Mac OS X; or (4) do without a computer. In Cases 3 and 4, Microsoft obviously "failed to make a sale." However, Choice 2 is less clear.

      If Choice 2 were unavailable to you for some reason, would you decide on Choice 1? If you would, my opinion is that Microsoft did in fact lose money because you are relying on the actionable offense of copyright infringement to acquire a copyrighted work without paying the author.

      If you don't like the fact that Microsoft charges a price of its own determination for its products, you do have options--and not just those mentioned above. You could try legal routes to make Microsoft lower its prices through competing products, for example.

      Wireless carriers whining about being unable to compete with WiFi hotspots is not equivalent to Microsoft's grievance against software copyright infringement. Don't try to justify your unwillingness to use a legal alternative like Linux with such a comparison.

      --
      On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
  40. The obvious answer... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    is to buy some legislation to outlaw these communistic "free" services so that the for-pay providers can make money, pay taxes, and help the economy (did I miss anything?). Let's get Dan Lyons to write a brilliant article about how the free hot-spots aren't as good as the for-pay ones...

  41. "WiFi Hotspots to Save Wireless Users $12B" by ewg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's all a matter of perspective.

    The casino gaming industry talks about its "earnings", not "winnings", or heaven forbid, its customers' "losses".

    --
    org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
  42. The next story down is more interesting by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    On ebing asked whether they were using wireless or not "26% were unsure which technology they were using". Astonishing! Even my mother knows what wireless. Hell, even my father, who's never used a computer in his life (no exaggeration whatsoever!) could probably guess that if there are no wires coming out of it then it's probably wireless!

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  43. in other news... by petwalrus · · Score: 1
    In other news, WiFi users have saved over $12B in cellular fees by switching over to 802.11b/g technologies.

    Just noting that the article has a little bias in its phrasing.

  44. To Find These Hotspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This reminds me of a very cool hotspot search engine. Dowza. It lists free and paid hotspots with map, Google ads only.

  45. Bogus numbers as usual by Namlak · · Score: 1

    This numbers game has been played many times.

    There's only $12 Billion of lost revenue ONLY if those users would have bought the service otherwise.

    This is just like the phone companies saying that they lost Billions in phone revenue because of phreakers. Ummm, they wouldn't have made most of those freebie calls if they weren't free!

    Same thing with CD sales. Sorry, but maybe Billions of dollars of music were freely traded with P2P networks but what percentage of those "CDs" that were downloaded would have been bought otherwise? I know I deleted almost all the stuff I listened to but I certainly bought more CD's than before P2P because some of the "guesses" I tried, I liked enough to pay the artists for!

    Unfortunately, the lawmakers are clued out so this makes for effective propaganda to get laws passed in favor of these "battered" businesses.

    --Business uses statistics like a drunk uses a lampost - more for leaning on than illumination.

  46. Hooray for Wi-Fi - Bite me, Verizon! by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    Hooray, actually!

    Go figure. The needs of people are not being met by the current telco carriers. This is good for us as geeks.

    We can kinda see a similar pattern, in the way that the diversity of the technologies available are surpassing the market's ability to keep-up -- and unintended uses start to become a factor in these big market statistics. Old modems were like this at the time of 14.4Kbps and USR's 16.8Kbps HST protocols, as attempts to jam more bits through the same pipe. Then there became digital modems, which would aggregate more modems than the rack at the CompUSA into a single modular rackmount unit. There were different standards later on, and interoperability, manufacturers eventually would conform to whatever standard, and the users would follow.

    There are so many different bands of wireless communications in use, the interesting thing about Wi-Fi, 802.11a-z, and bluetooth, is that they are in unlicensed frequencies, which the FCC specifies rules we can follow for operation. Wireless cellular telephone carriers, by contrast, purchase their frequencies, in order to sell us service.

    All of these different services operate in different ways, and have their own operating charachteristics. Cellular telephones are generally thought to have continuous coverage, while Wi-Fi, bluetooth, and others are pretty short. The FCC limits the ammout of power that you can emit in these unlicensed bands, so they're generally used for short distances, but might be useful for the last mile.

    As we see more and more communication devices using these bands in better and more efficient ways, and as the FCC (at least here in the US) opens-up the frequencies -- allowing us to perform more differnt types of communication, at more different frequencies, and in more ways -- we effectively have the science fiction world of video-phones and and flying cars and little blinkey handheld computers that we read about in science fiction novels and Sci-Fi channel shows.

    I think its a good time to be a geek.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  47. Rain Slashes Projected Bottled Water Revenues! by tweedlebait · · Score: 1

    ...well it does, doesn't it?!

    --
    Firefox & /. ? Use this often:
  48. WARDRIVING FOR ALL by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    Of course, I wardrive all the time. It's amazing just how many public hotspots there are at any given time, there's at least 5 on my block, and I'm in Pittsburgh! Of course, I live on the mail drag in my town.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  49. It's not even that WiFi is cheap... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Even if there was no WiFi, wireless carriers are pricing most data plans at such a level that I am pained to read text email on them, much less browse a single web page with images!

    Through some quirk of pricing, the T-Mobile T-Zones plan is not too expensive (a few $) and I can use my bluetooth phone to bring the network to my laptop, seemingly with no extra fees.

    If I want to add "web browsing" capability to the phone itself - why that is around $15-$20 a month more!!

    In short they are missing hardly any revenue from WiFi, they are missing revenue because people are not idiots and will not pay for something vastly overpriced unless it is just about mandatory.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  50. I Interviewed the FBI by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    I interviewed the FBI at SeattleWireless TV, and the agent I talked to said he hadn't seen any attempted attacks. I should probably get an update and post it.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
    1. Re:I Interviewed the FBI by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I interviewed the FBI at SeattleWireless TV, and the agent I talked to said he hadn't seen any attempted attacks.

      I should probably get an update and post it.


      Are you nuts? Let sleeping lions lie. Even if the agent you talk to has no 'political' aspirations, even if his boss doesn't either, all it takes is for the right idiot to get the wrong idea and we're off on a new crusade agaisnt freedom.

      Don't tempt fate. Really.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  51. Misleading Title by tom's+a-cold · · Score: 4, Informative

    I spent $10 on a bottle of wine. So should the headline read "Wine purchase costs banana growers $10"?

    It's the same logic the RIAA and MPAA use, and it's fallacious.

    It's not their money. It's not being taken from them. It's not costing them shit. It's just diverting money they think should be theirs to other, more worthwhile. uses. But there's no real evidence that it ever would have been spent on what they have to sell, rather than saved, or spent on any other thing in the world that can be bought.

    These people's sense of entitlement to what they haven't earned is sickening. Bunch of corporate welfare scroungers. Next they'll go whining for the government to seize the money for them.

    --
    Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
  52. VZW BroadbandAccess by WNGA · · Score: 1

    I pay $80 a month for unlimited use of Verizon Wireless' BroadbandAccess service. Sure, I could use WiFi options, if they existed in every single place i wanted to use my laptop. You have no idea how nice it is to be able to travel all around the city, and in many cities across the nation, and have an instant 500kbps - 1mbps connection nearly everywhere I go -- even in a moving vehicle. Very sweet!!!

  53. Hold on.. wait a hot second there mister.. by Rytr23 · · Score: 1

    I'm missing out on the chance to pay by the kb over a wireless connection at modem speeds versus getting usually T1 speeds over a hotspot connection for a free or nominal charge?? I feel ripped off... The man holding me down again.. Bastards

    --
    So many injustices..so little time..
  54. Hotspot is what it is: HOT SPOT by Dark+Coder · · Score: 1

    WOW! GPRS/GSM with WiFi feature really works!

    Imagine a cluster-fuck of freeloaders making nearly dirtcheap phone calls from restaurants, sidewalk cafes, coffeehouses anywhere in the world?

    Those businesses are sure gonna be making mucho-dinero on the WiFi side (not to mention their regular business as well.)

    A great way to simulate the local economy as well. We all know we need more of that, but the cellphone infrastructure-oriented industry vows not to see this happened.

    That WiFi-VoIp shall flourish, unless the wireless industry (cellphone-oriented, that is) ogre is going to squash the baby ugly duckling and grind its bones (thru legislation, cheaper business model or dinosaurs-extinction) before WiFi-VoIP gets a chance to emerges into a beautiful swan.

    I, for one, welcome the UMA/WiFi-VoIP cellphone overlord (and I hope its FCC chairman).

  55. Un-American air-commies!!! by slittle · · Score: 1

    When you breathe open air, you're breathing communism.

    --
    Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
  56. Re:WIMAX by womby · · Score: 1

    I have a 100megs connection at home, upgradable to 1Gig for just $2 extra a month, given the chance to set up a free wimax hotspot I would leap at the chance, to be able to sit by the (admittedly shoddy) river and use my home internet connection would be enough value. to leave the access point open would be no extra burden to me.

    --
    **** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
  57. Perhaps it should be rephrased... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

    Commercial WiFi hotspots and open WiFi networks save consumers about $12 billion, says Starategy Analytics.

  58. WiFi hotspots ARE wireless by brre · · Score: 1
    Take a look. No wires, see? That's what puts the Wi in WiFi. Wi means wireless.

    You've fallen into the cell industry-speak of calling cellphone "wireless". In fact there are a lot more wireless options than cell, as this current discussion illustrates.

    And as the cell industry would prefer didn't exist. Which is perhaps why the word "cell" never comes out of the cell industry's mouth. Nope, it's always "wireless" as if they defined it.

    Hey, here's another one: "Windows". There's a software vendor that calls its product "Windows" as if there were no other windowing systems out there.

  59. Yeah riiiight. by Nonillion · · Score: 1

    Leave it up to the wireless carriers to come up with pure bullshit. I am sick and tired of the wireless carriers following in the foot steps of the RIAA / MPAA implying free loading or piracy is the reason for their dropping revenue.

    I use T-Mobile hotspots for my internet access and phone service since I told verizon to shove it when my line suddenly didn't qualify for DSL. And of course Comcast will sucker you in with a cheap introductory rate, double it and then apply a $10 punishment fee if you don't want cable TV.

    Right now I pay $29.95 for my cellular service and 19.95 for my internet access each month. When it's all said and done it's still cheaper than the conventional phone service and DSL I had before I moved. Even though it's kind of a pain to sit in Starbucks to use my internet access, it's still way faster than the DSL I had before (synchronous T-1). But there is an advantage to gawking at the chicks behind the counter.

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  60. This is already happening by montguy · · Score: 1

    Just at the state level instead:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/01/philly_ver izon_wireless/

  61. sigh... by Zilfondel2 · · Score: 1

    No sarcasm lost on you!

  62. WiFi in the pub by Cyclometh · · Score: 1

    I'm reading /. on a free wifi hotspot right now. In a bar, with a beer. Gotta love it. :)

  63. "users are... by Exluddite · · Score: 1

    ...more prone to use a cheap WiFi connection, if one is available." Ya think?

    --
    What does this button do...
  64. duh by mellomutt · · Score: 1

    and duh again

  65. Also... by thelizman · · Score: 1

    I pointed this out elsewhere, but got modded down by the commie mods as 'flamebait'. Irregardless, WiFi and wireless aren't necessarily competing products, so WiFi is actually creating a new market that wireless carriers haven't exploited. Most WiFi is used for electronic messaging, which if you've seen the cost of doing this on cell phones, you'd understand why most people still don't text each other.

  66. someone is getting rich by jeisc · · Score: 1

    I don't have a land phone line so I have an mobile phone with a gprs-110Kbits/sec or gsm-10Kbits/sec(this is the french acronym) modem to connect to the network and am getting an unlimited service to the internet ports http, https, stmp, pop , imap, ftp no ssh or telnet or other service ports also included is 120 hours of wifi access at their sponsored hotspots(and some of them don't work and they are few and far between). I hardly ever use the wifi offer except when I need to get onto the database. This option to my account costs me 120 euros a month (ouch that hurts mister). And now they are offering a third generation protocol gprs2-380Kbits/sec with a nifty pcmia card at 90 euros a month for only 24 hours of connection time included and normally I can get onto a database with this new protocol! (more pain for more speed!). I live in France and I feel that I am getting hosed and I really want that new formule but only 24 hours just doesn't do it. Bend over and branch that cable and forget about your behind! bro telco has it in hand ready to give your the royal service anywhere you have a mobile telephone signal. Who are they trying to kid only businesses and people like me without a fixed phone or home are going to spit out cash like that for this service.
    With this third generation protocol they are advertising the video phone call but they just don't mention the prices on the television ad.

    --
    This is a test!
  67. The same story by WMNelis · · Score: 1

    This is par for the course these days. I think this is simply a symptom of people thinking internet access is not worth what the providers are charging for it. I would love to have my own connection at home, but I am not willing to pay $60 a month for it.

    This is just like the music industry. I think people prefer having the real copies of the CDs that they like. The problem is most CDs have one or two tracks that are worth anything, and they are too expensive.

    --

    Sig free since 2/6/2002