The New Wireless Wars

An anonymous reader writes "BusinessWeek has a story on the coming wireless wars. It's a look at how the upcoming government auction of wireless spectrum will open the door to a new crop of competitors. The new players, from Google and Microsoft to Intel and Craig McCaw's Clearwire, will compete in new wireless voice services and in wireless broadband. Look out Cingular, Verizon Wireless, and Sprint-Nextel."

Comments

Community networks

[ozmanjusri]

What I'd like to see is peer-to-peer community networks which use each device as a node. That would free us from this centralised manipulation of the market.

There are already fairly successful attempts to provide this with existing wifi hardware - http://www.e3.com.au/, for example. How hard would it be to design devices that would set themselves up in a self-managed mesh network which requires no centre?

Re:Community networks

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to build local, inefficient ad hoc wireless networks? Why? Why not just pool community resources to build a small, independent wireless station that lets you peer with your community and with the rest of the world?

Re:Community networks

[lamebrane]

How can we trust everyone on our node to not browse our packets? At least with one of the major providers, we know that only their partners, suppliers, and, of course the NSA, would be listening in to every byte. Most of our traffic still is unencrypted and I doubt that many of us really want to trust each of our neighbors with our email. Also, this might be a problem for the gov't sniffers since they would have a harder time associating an IP with a location. Oh, well.

Re:Community networks

[iminplaya]

Also, this might be a problem for the gov't sniffers since they would have a harder time associating an IP with a location.

Can't tell if you're serious, but that's the idea.

Re:Community networks

[lamebrane]

I've been told that people can't tell when I'm joking or or serious. Maybe I should get a job for the WH/PR.

Actually, it shouldn't be too hard to track all IP packets through various onion-routers (or somesuch) if the listeners have access to each and every end-point. My guess is that the "listeners" have forced all providers (ISPs, router/switch manufacuterers, etc.) to give them provisions to tie in to the circuits.

Much has been made about the logging of call logs such as originating/destination numbers and durations. My guess is that there is also much more information available including GPS locations and complete voice/digital traffic.

Good Luck!

Re:Community networks

[E IS mC(Square)]

>>How hard would it be to design devices that would set themselves up in a self-managed mesh network which requires no centre?

You might want to check this out : http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/contents.php - esp chap#2. He talks about sefl-managed 'entities' without any central control.

Its a good read - esp in the light of web2.0 and social networking. So apt.

Re:Community networks

[ozmanjusri]

You might want to check this out :

Thanks for that - very cool link.

Re:Community networks

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right , we should have been done this before FON and its "community".... http://freenetworks.org/ is a good start We try to federate networks in france : http://wireless-fr.org/ as well , but law-infringment problems still exists... Hopefully http://wifidog.org/ will help this .... Maybe we should built a money driven foundation to build this....

Re:Community networks

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark my words -- it will be criminalized. There is no way government is going to pass up the opportunity to rule over the most popular and effective communication network ever to exist. Control requires a centralized infrastructure, and that is exactly why government will make decentralized networks illegal. The scapegoats will be terrorism, child porn, drugs -- the usual.

I agree however -- a decentralized network of super hi-speed wireless (we're talking about the future) nodes is the obvious holy grail of networking, just like decentralized power, water, and sewer are the obvious holy grails of utilities. Decentralization is the future, the natural progression of technology (the correct solution), unless government succeeds in preventing it.

(For anyone who's doubting the benefits of decentralization, you need to experience a few good weeks without electricity like we do here in Florida during hurricane season. You would quickly realize what a bumbling behemoth of a half-assed solution the power grid is. Clumsy, inefficient, vunerable, high-maintainance -- it's almost as if it was designed to fail.)

Re:Community networks

[ozmanjusri]

Control requires a centralized infrastructure, and that is exactly why government will make decentralized networks illegal.

That's the way its working out here. It looks like freenets will never have legal common carrier status. As a result, each node will be liable for the content of the traffic passing through it. If someone downloads a bomb recipe, the owner of each node the recipe passes through will have participated in an act of terrorism, and will be liable to prosecution.

That's why ad-hoc networks will be safer - if the mesh is established entirely in hardware, and connections are transient, it is much harder to determine and prosecute the owner of each node.

Re:Community networks

[queazocotal]

There are fundamental problems with self-managed 'grid' networks.

Basically, if you're all using the same frequency space (802.11*), then the overall random noise from the distant nodes - those far enough away that collision avoidance can't work, because you can't recieve their distinct signal, overrides local ones.

An example - consider a plane with a distribution of transmitters. Inside a certain radius, you can beat this a bit by doing the collision avoidance thing, but as you go outwards the signal from the nodes drops off by 1/r^2, but r more nodes appear, meaning that the contribution of each radius from the transmitter is not 1/r^2, but 1/r. Add all these up, and it sums to infinite noise

This can get better if the terrain, or atmosphere absorbs the frequency in question.

One way to stop this happening is to have several non-interfering networks overlaid.

For example, a wi-max network that carries 'long-haul' traffic off the 802.11* network.

Another problem with the 'grid' topology is that if the hops are 100m across, and you want to get to a major node that connects to the rest of the network 1Km away, the nodes that are right next to the big access point are each carrying the traffic of dozens of nearby nodes, for which they are the best route to the net.

Not to mention that it's not going to be this nice, because geography means that in nearly all areas you're not going to get a nice spread of traffic between nodes.

This is not a routing efficiency problem. It's a fundamental problem about the number of hops you need to connect through to get to the 'proper' internet. If the average connection takes 20 hops to get to the net, then at best, you're looking at each node having 5% of it's sticker bandwidth.

Re:Community networks

[jc42]

How hard would it be to design devices that would set themselves up in a self-managed mesh network which requires no centre?

Such a network existed at MIT 25 years ago, in the form of the ChaosNet, a home-grown "mesh" network in today's terminology. Others have done it, too. The Negroponte gang are planning to do it with their "$100 laptop".

It's easy to understand why the commercial folks would prefer a centrally-controlled, heirarchical network. And note that the non-heirarchical system seem to be non-commercial.

OTOH, heirarchical systems are full of single points of failure. At any time, there is usually only one path between two points, so every part of the network is a SPoF.

The mystery is why customers put up with such an unreliable network, when we know ways of making it more reliable (often for less cost).

Re:Community networks

[jc42]

How can we trust everyone on our node to not browse our packets?... Most of our traffic still is unencrypted ...

We can't, of course, but you implicitly answered the question yourself: Encrypt everything. It's as simple as that. And nothing else works. A packet can always be read by every machine that sees it. On a wireless network, that means every machine within range. All you can do is make the packet's contents incomprehensible via encryption.

Of course, you can't encrypt the packet headers; if you do, the packet is undeliverable. This inherently makes you liable to the sort of monitoring that is currently worrying the US media with the news of the government's access to phone-call records. This can be handled with "anonymizer" relay services, but that does require a trusted third (fourth, fifth, ...) party.

Re:Community networks

[Halvy]

I would MUCH rather have my neighbor down the street get caught by me if he/she does something wrong with my data.

It is much easier to find this out AND bring them to justice, then those slimey stalkers with unlimited budgets who are our 'servants'.

-- My favorite thing about OSS, is its Militancy!!

Re:Community networks

[iminplaya]

I think the key here is mobility. Wireless provides the ability to reduce the dependance on fixed, corporate run ISPs. It has the potential to bring about a true peer to peer internet. The server-client model we use is little more than TV with a really fancy remote, and has proven to be not so robust after all. But then, that's not what the article is about. It makes a lot of noise about competition from small companies buying up spectrum. Well, for one thing, this is an auction. Most small companies will get priced out. If they do manage to get their hands on some spectrum, they will be bought out. The quote of the day, "It's a billionaires' high-stakes poker game...". Nothing's going to change. Some big companies will spin off or create "small" divisions to buy up what they can and then re-merge. Though it would be nice to have ubiquitous wireless. This does nothing to relieve us of corporate control. Only a loose community wireless mesh made up of hundreds of desktop and laptop machines run by our neighbors will do that. This is what can protect us from the snoops. I think things along the lines of VPN might help to keep nosy neighbors out. And the mobility will keep the spies off balance. I am on topic...right? Probably redundant as well...

Google (of course)

[electrosoccertux]

This could be the last ingredient Google needs to build their network. They've got the backbone, the fibre communications. Buy up a large enough chunk of the spectrum and they could give everyone 100Mbps wifi through a $10 software PCMCIA/PCI card. I, for one, welcome our new wireless overlords.

Re:Google (of course)

[usurper_ii]

The problem with this, of course, is that it cost an incredible amount of money to put up wireless APs to cover any good size piece of land...and because you want to get the most amount of users per AP, it only makes sense to deploy your network in heavily populated areas, which is exactly the kinds of areas that already have cable and DSL available. Just take what it cost Google just to do SF -- 15 million-plus -- and it doesn't take long to figure that even Google isn't going to cover much ground before going broke.

And the people who really, really want this type of service, in rural areas, are going to get the shaft yet again.

But Google wants to pay the bills -- at least in part -- with advertising. It only makes sense to put that AP right where the most amount of eyes will hit it. I can't fault them for that.

Usurper_ii

Re:Google (of course)

[Telvin_3d]

Yeah, but the benefit of the frequencies that are being sold off is that they work at much longer ranges than the current wireless. I am thinking that the cost in implimenting might drop a bit if you only need, say a fifth or a tenth as many base stations to cover the same amout of area.

Re:Google (of course)

[Anonymous Coward]

Seconded, that was my thought as well.

Re:Google (of course)

[Nutt]

I am not an RF engineer but from what I see on the bandplan on the FCCs site the frequencies range from 1710 to 1755 Mhz for mobile units and from 2110 to 2155 MHz for the base stations. I think most cell phones operate in bands around 900 and 1900 MHz so the range increase from switching frequencies would probably be minimal. Not to mention that the amount of bandwidth, the method of modulation/encoding, and the environment (urban/rural) is the usually limiting factor in being able to serve more consumers.

Uh-oh

[JPribe]

OMGz!!! Choices for the consumer! But will prices or real product selection improve? Ha. I'll still be using my cell as a dial-up modem for at least 5 more years.

Yawn...

[Hollyfeld]

Within four to five years, this auction's winners could have these wireless networks up and running, competing directly with entrenched carriers like Cingular, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel (S) and T-Mobile... wake me up when this "news" might actually have an effect on my life...

Telcos running scared

[Nefarious Wheel]

Just spent a year at the major telco in Australia. Hype or not, they are running hot and scared about the erosion of their potential copper ISP margins by public and small private wireless networks. Very scared, to the point of restructuring top to bottom at a cost of billions. I don't know if it will do us any good, but I overheard the term "buggy whip" a lot.

Personally I'd not be surprised to see a lot of telcos trying very hard to find a way to buy up whatever bandwidth they can, by proxy or sponsored small company.

If they do, then's the time to cry "Foul" and sic the ombudsmen on them. Could end up another California Red Car Line if you don't (buy up and blow up -- Jim Fisk of Fisk Tires bought the Red Car Line -- go figure).

Phone company calculus

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Pervasive, inexpensive wireless + VoIP = R.I.P. Traditional Telcos

yay.

[syncrotic]

Wow, more pay per megabyte, pay per message, pay per minute radio services - I can hardly wait. Or maybe they'll have unlimited-as-long-as-you-don't-use-it service for $80/month.

How about allocating some spectrum in this crucial range - low enough in frequency to go through walls and remain reliable in the rain, but high enough to transmit useful amounts of information - to unlicensed wireless networking? Looking at the multi-billion dollar industry that's developed around squeezing every last bit of bandwidth out of the 2.4GHz band, one could argue that unlicensed sprectrum is actually more valuable to the nation's economy than more cellular bandwidth.

Re:yay.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

one could argue that unlicensed sprectrum is actually more valuable to the nation's economy than more cellular bandwidth.

That depends on how you state the argument. There isn't a Linksys, Dlink or Cisco store in either of my nearest large malls, but even the tinyiest mini-mall has at least one cellular provider. Even the stores that sell both Wifi and cell phones, as much or more space is given to the cell phones. And that's to say nothing of the expensive towers that have to be set up every several miles on every highway and to cover all urban and suburban areas. As such, I am thinking there is a lot more money in cellular networking. Even by usage time, I would think there is more human time spent on mobile phones than on 2.4GHz networking and 2.4GHz cordless phones.

Re:yay.

[uniqueUser]

squeezing every last bit of bandwidth out of the 2.4GHz band

I do not deny my ignorance, but why is there a need for more bandwidth? Could multiple carriers not use the same frequency but have different IP ranges (or the IP equivalent for the cell phone industry)?

Re:yay.

[LordVader717]

That's not the point.
First off, the importance to the economy isn't represented by the amount of shelfspace used to attract teenagers to upgrade their phones once a year.

Second, it's about potential and value to free competition. Which industry has had a surge of innovative products, brought prices drastically down, advanced technolology to levels that we could only dream of not so long ago, and which has been raking billions by ripping off customers?

It's not that surprising that more importance is given to mid-range cellphones in everyday life. But anybody else has been prevented from offering something similar.

The way the WiFi industry has grown and innovated shows how much potential free markets have, if the medium isn't owned by someone else. (which is admittedly pretty obvious. Imagine if Ford owned roads)

Re:yay.

[TwilightSentry]

I do not deny my ignorance, but why is there a need for more bandwidth? Could multiple carriers not use the same frequency but have different IP ranges (or the IP equivalent for the cell phone industry)?

Not really; the problem isn't address space, but that you can only have so much data over a certain range of frequencies. Think about it like this: The IP address is your house's address, and the bandwidth is the road leading up to your house. If there are 200 cars trying to get through that road at the same time, it doesn't matter if they're all going to the same house or not, they just plain won't fit.

By the way, IP addresses exist at level 3 in the OSI stack, frequency is part of level 1/level 2. At least in this context, there's no need to assume that there are IP addresses at all. I don't know how much you could do with it, but you could theoretically make a stack that did 802.11b and just let you send messages to different MAC addresses...

Upcomming Bidding war

[Taimat]

I wonder what type of turnout it will be when the UHF/VHF Bands go to auction. Even though the transition to all digital was to be completed this year. Completing the Transition to Digital Television ... It doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon. We need to get away from 2.4ghz - way to crowded. Local ISPs are running freq. hoping on the full band, with illegal boosting ( >1watt) and claim otherwise when we complain about too much noise on a particular channel. Give me more freq!

Re:Upcomming Bidding war

[Jeff DeMaagd]

We need to get away from 2.4ghz - way to crowded.

I'm sure the "a" wireless bands are wide-open just about everywhere.

Goodbye to the telcos!

[Darth Liberus]

Because certainly Cingular, Verizon Wireless, and Sprint/Nextel won't be buying any of these new frequencies ;)

One can hope...

[fossa]

Look out Cingular, Verizon Wireless, and Sprint-Nextel

I certainly hope so. I went to great pains to buy an unlocked phone to switch back and forth between the two nation-wide GSM carriers... Cingular and T-Mobile. Here's hoping for improved service through competition. I only know what people tell me about Europe, but I assume the system of "buy a phone, buy or recharge a SIM card" is superior to the "sign a two year contract" here in the US

Re:One can hope...

[karmatic]

Oh, you can already do it, if you are willing to spend some time, efford, and/or money.

I bought a T-Mobile MDA yesterday (without a contract). I'm a cingular user.

A few minutes on xda-developers, and I had a utility to remove the SIM lock, and the CID (bootloader) lock. Flashed the cingular firmware on it, and I was good to go.

I also unlocked my cingular treos (one I got from ebay), and flashed them with a customized version of the generic GSM firmware. No annoying carrier customizations, and I had a rock-solid, unlocked phone.

T-Mobile and Cingular don't lock their SIMs, so you are free to use any compatible phone you can get. Their phones can almost all be unlocked, and if you don't take the $150 subsidy in exchange for the phone, they will give you the unlock code. T-Mobile will give you the code on a subsidized phone after 3 months; I had no problem getting Cingular to give me unlock codes the day after activation (that was a business acct, FWIW).

You want beligerant, try Verizon. I had terminated the contract (and paid the fee to cover the subsidy) with Sprint, and had a free CDMA phone, which supported E911 and all other required technology. I flashed it with the stock Verizon firmware. It had Verizon firmware, settings, the works. They still wouldn't take it. Verizon will not take phones they didn't sell.

Sprint had no problem activating a ex-verizon phone for me, however. Go figure.

Re:One can hope...

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I had no problem getting Cingular to give me unlock codes the day after activation (that was a business acct, FWIW).

If true, you are possibly the first person anywhere Cingular has unlocked a phone for. I have never read anything anywhere about Cingular that has shown a willingness to unlock a phone. In fact, everything, and I do really mean everything, I have ever read about Cingular has stated that they will not under any circumstances unlock a phone. I'm curious to know if:
1) This represnts a change in Cingular's policy.
2) You just got lucky from someone who didn't know they aren't supposed to unlock it.
3) Cingular has different policies for business and personal use customers.
4) You are lying because we have no way to verify what you are saying.

No offense, but pardon my disbelief when Cingular has had a very firm policy for years of not unlocking their phones, so it's a little hard to believe it when some guy says they unlocked it the day after activation.

Re:One can hope...

[nmos]

Verizon will not take phones they didn't sell.

Well, they may not have taken YOUR phone but they certainly do take phones they didn't sell. I have a Motorola V60c here that was origionally an Altel phone and I didn't have any trouble activating it on Verizon via their web site. I didn't change the firmware either.

Re:One can hope...

[karmatic]

We were a (relativly) new company, so they made us put a $250 deposit just to open a line of service. That may have helped.

Anyhow, the process I went through was this:
Went into store, showed copy of flight itenary (to Europe).
Cingular store rep called tech support, which placed in a request for escalation.
I got an email from Cingular with the code.

Since I really do have nothing in particular to hide, I've even included a copy of the email I received, headers and all.

Yes, it's an HTML email. Yes, it looks ugly. Yes, it was created in Microsoft Word, and the grammar sucks. Don't blame me. The unlock code worked.

Here it is.

The second phone I had unlocked, I again went into the store. This was the day before I had to leave for europe, and was the phone I bought off eBay. They again called Tech Support, and had it escalated. They gave the code over the phone, and I had the instructions for how to use it already.

So, YMMV, but it worked for me for a corporate account with an existing $250 deposit.

In general, the only carrier I haven't been able to get a code from was T-Mobile (never tried with Verizon). For Sprint (at least with treos), you just whine about vision isn't working. Tell them what they try isn't working. At some point, they will tell you do do a vision reset. There are two unlock codes for the phone. The first is a one-time code, and it may have been used activating the phone. The second one is the permanent code. Tell them the first one doesn't work, and they will give you a second one. You now have both.

So, yeah, getting the code on a subsidized phone does occasionally involve some "social engineering" (read lying). They don't know they can collect on an early termination fee. So, buy the phone outright, wait for your contract to expire, use T-Mobile for 3 months, or learn to lie really well.

Re:One can hope...

[karmatic]

How long ago was this? It wasn't too long ago you could do that. They now block those via the websites, under the pretense that they don't know if it's e911 compatible, and complies with all regulations.

Re:One can hope...

[nmos]

That was about a year ago so it's possible things have changed. Also, if you ever have to deal with them in person there is a huge variation in the ability/willingness of their reps. to do things. If you don't like the answer they give you ask someone else.

Re:One can hope...

[Ledgem]

I think it's just because he did it for business purposes, as a business. I went through a fun process of trying to get a phone unlocked as well; my SIM card is AT&T, but my bills are now Cingular. However, the phone saw my SIM as a foreign SIM and demanded an unlock code before I could use any aspect of it. I tried calling Cingular for it, Motorola for it, even conference called Motorola and Cingular representatives, but it yielded nothing.

The issue could have been remedied by either giving me the unlock code, or programming a Cingular SIM card with my account. Instead, Cingular was insistant that I "upgrade" my account to one of Cingular's accounts. Why would I do that? To get almost the same plan as I have now (but still not as good) it'd still cost me a fair bit more per month! It's an example of company discrimination ("Cingular Blue" vs. "Cingular Orange"). The best part was this: one of the representatives at the store I went to informed me that if I went a bit farther down the road, there was a store that would unlock the phone for $15. I suppose the representative was being nice to me, but it didn't sit well with me, and still doesn't. A company would tell a paying customer to either change, or go to a third party, just to use the phone in the first place? Come on.

In the end I returned the phone (which I purchased without any assistance from Cingular, thank you very much) and bought the same model from a different retailer, unlocked. It was imported, but the GSM bands don't care which country the phone comes from. Ironically, I ended up saving money by doing this, as the phone was cheaper than the Cingular-branded one.

I'll also throw in a plug for my model of phone, since I love it so much. If you're looking for a new phone, consider the Motorola MPx220. Windows Mobile 2003 (and I hear 2005 has now been released for newer devices) is actually quite decent, and the phone is pretty nice: ARMv4 processor (dual core), clocked ~190 MHz and can be reliably overclocked to 240 MHz, 32 MB of RAM, a MiniSD card reader with stable support for cards up to 1 GB, quad-band support... based off of my experiences with this phone, my next phone will definitely be a smartphone as well.

Re:One can hope...

[karmatic]

I tried two CSRs, the website, and a store trying to get the ex-sprint Treo 650 on Verizon.

They all gave me the same answer. This was like 3 months ago.

"Please save me. Magical Community" networks

[Anonymous Coward]

"What I'd like to see is peer-to-peer community networks which use each device as a node. That would free us from this centralised manipulation of the market."

You-->---vast geographic wasteland--->---some large metropolitain city.
      |               |                |
Hope--         Shark--      More hope--

An idea for our socialist friends...

[Zaphod2016]

Note to all members of the Ayn Rand reading club: the below post is not for you.

With so much recent debate in regards to the NSA, and the age-old privacy/security debate, the growth of WiFi raises an interesting hypothetical IMO.

Let us pretend that Community X is a small town, with a centralized "village" area spanning a few blocks, including a few parks, public areas, etc. The community government taxes the citizens, and provides a quality WiFi network throughout the village, including the schools and libraries.

As owner and administrator, Community X could police the network traffic however they pleased. They could look for people buying pot on craigs list, or scumbags stalking children on MySpace.

To those thinking "but I'll always own my line to the web"....sure, me too. And of course you'd have to be a pretty dumb criminal to be using a public WiFi network in this manner. However, I argue that catching dumb criminals is the only thing the local police are good at anyway, and at least this way, they have less time to pull me over for rolling through stop signs at 3am.

But what if: Bibleville, OH can now ban pornography on their community WiFi network directly. They could even block bloggers talking about Satan or whatever else offended their sensibilities.

Rather than focus on sweeping federal legislation, forcing morality upon millions of unhappy citizens, these complicated issues could be pushed back to a local level, and maybe, just maybe, compromised into some sort of working solution.

Details from FCC on AWS-1

[martyb]

Here are some links with details from the FCC on Auction 66 aka Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-1):

Auction 66 Summary Page

Auction 66 Fact Sheet (Lots of details on this page if you scroll down).

NOTE: These are not virgin frequencies; some relocation of existing users' bandwith is required in order to free up these frequencies. See the Fact Sheet for details.

An idea for our hypothetical friends...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Note to all members of the Ayn Rand reading club: the below post is not for you."

Sorry. I'm not a member of the Church of Ayn Rand.

"With so much recent debate in regards to the NSA, and the age-old privacy/security debate, the growth of WiFi raises an interesting hypothetical IMO."

Damn technology rasing social issues. Were's my green marker?

"As owner and administrator, Community X could police the network traffic however they pleased. They could look for people buying pot on craigs list, or scumbags stalking children on MySpace."

Just like societies do now.

"To those thinking "but I'll always own my line to the web"....sure, me too. And of course you'd have to be a pretty dumb criminal to be using a public WiFi network in this manner. However, I argue that catching dumb criminals is the only thing the local police are good at anyway, and at least this way, they have less time to pull me over for rolling through stop signs at 3am."

One characteristic all crimminals have is arrogance. "The dumb cops will never catch me".

"But what if: Bibleville, OH can now ban pornography on their community WiFi network directly. They could even block bloggers talking about Satan or whatever else offended their sensibilities."

How's this hypothetical different than any other public resource?

"Rather than focus on sweeping federal legislation, forcing morality upon millions of unhappy citizens, these complicated issues could be pushed back to a local level, and maybe, just maybe, compromised into some sort of working solution."

Like they already are. So when are you going to start getting involved instead of sitting all day in front of a computer posting to slashdot hypotheticals?

Re:An idea for our hypothetical friends...

[Zaphod2016]

Nothing like anonymous activism, eh?

But you raise a good point, any board that rates the above post a "Troll -1" is not worth my time. Apparently the purpose of this board is to repost the same 6 ideas again and again and again.

And these, too, will fail: bad backhaul

[postbigbang]

The bits per hertz problem throttles each and every kind of two-way wireless.

When multiple concurrent instances occur of those ugly, low-frame rate videos with the tiny rasters and 256-bit color, it's going to clog the backhaul. OFDM currently carries the best bit/hertz rate, and you can't make dense enough cells to support what copper or fiber carries.

You can get close, until the public uptake causes backhaul arterial sclerosis. Then you get the same problem you have today with EVDO, EDGE, and all of the other schemes--> unacceptable quality and carriers that have a telco mentality.

More spectrum != better quality, because the network backend hasn't been developed yet that meets future demands. These are all short-term plays with doomed future when they fail or have glaring delivery problems that can't be solved because of the bits/hertz problem. Until a miracle occurs in encoding capabilities, the front end fails; and if the front end works, then the backend infrastructure fails.

And organizations will go willy-nilly to the FCC and pay untold amounts of $$ to get spectra robbed from other services. And their stockholders will pray that it makes a return on the investment. And, like other schemes in the US, there will be bitter disappointment when people learn just how low speed these wireless 'broadband' connections actually are.

Until both the encoding schemes mature, and there's a re-investment in network backhaul, buying spectra isn't the answer, only a new set of problems.

Re:And these, too, will fail: bad backhaul

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the bits/hertz problem, and what is backhaul?

Re:And these, too, will fail: bad backhaul

[Nutt]

The bits/hertz problem refers to the fact that you can only cram so many bits of information into a cycle of a waveform. For instance, in phase shift keying the phase of a signal is shifted and represents a certain number of bytes. As an example, in bi-PSK a carrier frequency is shifted between two possible phases (0 or 180 degrees). Therefore, since you have two possible states, you can transmit a maximum of one bit per cycle of the carrier (2^1).

If you shift the carrier by four states you can send two bits of data per cycle (2^2) and so on. The problem is that it gets increasingly difficult to detect and recover the correct data and it imposes a limit on the amount of data that can be transmitted at once. Currently the maximum for PSK is around 256-psk (I think..) or 8 bits per cycle.

Some methods to increase the amount of data able to be transmitted include increasing the bandwidth (makes the signal cycle faster therefore more states per given period of time) and using efficient modulation methods.

I dont know about the backhaul problem, sorry.

Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

Know what a wireless war is?

It's when I stand up an 802.11b network on channel 11 and my retarded neighbors can't figure out that they can't run one on the same channel.

It's when I go to Starbucks to try to use my T-Mobile hotspot account and the business next door is running their own hotspot on a neighboring channel.

Re:Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes. Your neighbour's a retard because he didn't realise you 0wN channel 11...

Perhaps if you spoke to him nicely instead of frothing at the mouth you'd have more success explaining to him why running 2 wifis next door to each other on the same channel's a bad idea.

Or wait, is this the same neighbour that pissed you off by parking in YOUR spot on the public street outside?

Re:hardwired, the 'new' winless wars?

[lamebrane]

I tried to understand your screed. Does this involve some type of big "boom" attached to a cell phone?

I don't want to be insensitive to your primal and visceral creationism, but if you feel that way, can't you just communicate by grunting, intelligently, of course.

Wi-Max

[LiquidEdge]

802.16 will work in all of the frequencies that are up for grabs. When one antenna can give a 25 mile radius, the AP problem gets a lot smaller. Add to that the fact that Intel is going to start shipping WiMax chips, Centrino style, sometime in 2007, you've got yourself a market.

Rogers Wireless in Canada

[BRUTICUS]

Careful, don't go warning your wireless providers "Cingular, Verizon Wireless, and Sprint-Nextel" Its about time they give up some of their market.

This especially goes for www.rogers.com in Canada. They have a bit of the monopoly of cel phones, cable services, telephone services, internet services. They charge out the ass and find a way to make you pay for everything.

Internet on a cel phone by default is 5 cents per KB for example. And it doesn't get much cheaper than that with Rogers.

A couple months ago, the city of Toronto announced that they would create a new wireless downtown. This had Rogers pointing fingers, challenging the city and scrambling trying to figure out what to do. Somehow they have managed to announce a "wireless downtown" of their own about a month after the city of Toronto announced theirs. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts their version sucks, since they are pulling it out of their ass but they need to find a way to soak up some of the market before it seeps away.

www.ihaterogers.ca

Re:Rogers Wireless in Canada

[Mesinjah]

Rogers cable sucks! Here is a company that can't get past its own name. Everything Rogers touches is converted to a Rogers version. They recently bought Toronto's Skydome stadium, now it is Rogers Center, with GIANT logos all over it. They buy radio stations and convert them to Rogers stations. This company has never given good service on any level - Rogers plain old sucks.

Re:I just remembered my password!

[i.of.the.storm]

Wow, very nice. I must take a moment to congratulate you. There. This has got to be one of the funniest things I have seen on /.

Re:I just remembered my password!

[TopSpin]

I did something similar. Many moons ago I created this account and promptly forgot about it for many years while using another account. One day it dawned on me that the account I was using was 'temporary' due to having lost the password for the first. I took a chance and 'recovered' the original account; luckily I still had the email address used during registration, and here I am, 3 digit UID. :)

I suspect most of the sub-1000 UIDs are accounts created and forgotten by whomever. I rarely see any activity. Perhaps they grew up...

I dunno.

Re:sdg

[heinousjay]

I wish it were something so simple. Apparently it's the bluetooth module, which sucks because I use a bluetooth mouse and keyboard.

By the way, you don't need the bang at the end of the command. That's only to force a quit when you have changes you want to abandon.

BwaaHahahaha!!!

[mpapet]

Competition in telcommunication! Here comes the cliche' ROFL

An auction that won't go to a massive telco? I've got some fairies for you to meet and a beautiful bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale too.

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! It's not over until WE say it's over. Who's with me? C'mon!" Let's go buy some spectrum!

Don't Auction Spectrum!

[LinuxLuver]

In my experience over the past 20 years, auctioning spectrum typically results in expensive spectrum you can't afford to actually use because the purchaser paid too much for it and the consequence pricing is prohibitive. Maybe a lottery....but please.....no more auctions.

Another way to solve this equation is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pervasive, inexpensive wireless + VoIP = R.I.P. reliable service

Re:Another way to solve this equation is...

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

That's how it'll be presented to Congress, along with some scaremongering about E911 and less ability to illegally tap^W^W execute lawful warrants for monitoring.

Mod parent down - incoherent drivel

[Anonymous Coward]

Subject kind of says it all... Starting from the first sentence, the bits per hertz problem throttles each and every kind of communication, wireless or otherwise.

The rest of the post simply seems to cram as many acronyms and "big words" into "incoherent drivel"...

Big "boom"

[Jaxoreth]

Does this involve some type of big "boom" attached to a cell phone?

I believe it's called an IED, or 'improvised explosive device'.

xmax

[codingh34v3n]

one word XMAX (the future of wireless).
please, check out these links:
http://www.techworld.com/mobility/news/index.cfm?N ewsID=4722
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/09/xmax/
http://www.codingheaven.net/

Re:Goodbye to the telcos! Ma Bell is A . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheap Mother Fucker

2.4 Ghz redux

[Snorklefish]

The beauty of 2.4 Ghz spectrum has been the incredible innovation by companies taking advantage of this "free" spectrum. In my dreams, here's what I'd like to see...

A somewhat non-evil company buys spectrum. Next, they license that spectrum to all comers subject to non-discriminatory, one time fees and reasonable rules. E.g., for every wireless transmitter sold by "Belkin" and transmitting at X watts, "Belkin" would pay a 'tax' of $Z. If Belkin wants to sell a 2X watt device, they'd pay $5Z. If Belkin wants to sell a 3X watt device, they'd pay, e.g., $15Z.

The end user would still get the benefit of massive competition among protocols and equipment makers that has made 2.4 an incredible success. Plus, by charging a fee for the right to "pollute" the airwaves, we'd help keep things clean. No need for high-performance wireless? Use 2.4. Want something for VOIP, pay a little more and use a low power device on the fresh spectrum. Need a robust and thick connection? Buy the right to pollute the fresh spectrum. By prioritizing by customer need, we'd keep the spectrum clean for a lot longer.

Ladys & Gents, Introducing, 'The New Players!!

[Halvy]

Google, Micro$oft & Intel!!

And our beloved government, is going to 'sell' our spectrum..

Hmmm, wonder if I'll see any of the money..

Oh yea, I'll see it in action when they finally catch & prosecute me for being a pirate to help bring down the scum Ceo's at the Clear Channel and AT&T types.

-- My favorite thing about OSS, is its Militancy!!

Re:sdg

[DA-MAN]

I wish it were something so simple. Apparently it's the bluetooth module, which sucks because I use a bluetooth mouse and keyboard.

Oh crap. I misread your sig. I thought you were saying that your mini crashes often, but your dell doesn't when running XP. IE that both were running XP.

LOL

By the way, you don't need the bang at the end of the command. That's only to force a quit when you have changes you want to abandon.

Or if the file you are writing is read-only.