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

[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

[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

[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

[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)

[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.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.