Free Nationwide Wireless Internet Access?

LiquidEdge writes "ISP-Planet is reporting that startup M2Z wants to offer 95% of America free wireless Internet access using the 20Mhz frequency allocation. They're backed by Kleiner Perkins, one of the most successful VC firms in history, and being started by the guy who built the @Home network and a former FCC Wireless Bureau Chief. 384/128 speeds will be free and they'll sell the higher speeds and the government will get a kickback of the revenue."

Comments

Not if the Cell Companies...

[AKAImBatman]

...have anything to say about it. This effectively proposes enough bandwidth to eliminate the need for a traditional cellphone. Instead, you'd be able to carry around a Voice over IP phone that gets you the same coverage everywhere, with no "per minute" fees. The likely extension of this would be that a new telephone network would emerge that wouldn't even bother with POTS compatibility. Just assign your phone a DNS name, and you can start calling "l33tdude.myphone.net" instead of a horribly abstract phone number.

Give it enough time, and the POTS system (as well as all those expensive cell towers) would go away permenently. The result would be a network with communications that are as free as instant messaging from your computer. Certainly an attractive world for the consumer, but can we really expect to get there without interference? Not to mention that this would mean the end to phones subsidized by cell phone connectivity. Net phones would sell for what they're actually worth as opposed to being "free" or "discounted" with service.

Not that this isn't without its advantages. I don't know about anyone else, but my cell phone never truly feels like it's "mine". Its linkage with my phone carrier makes it feel more like a device I've rented. Especially when carriers like Verizon go out of their way to disable features like the USB connectivity on the Razrs. Sure, in theory you can pop in a new SIM card. But because of network differences and technology changes, it usually ends up being easier to get a new phone and throw your old one in a landfill. What a waste.

Re:Not if the Cell Companies...

[interiot]

Even without inexpensive wireless, sooner or later POTS numbers will be supplemented and ultimately supplanted.

Re:Not if the Cell Companies...

[Anonymous Coward]

the POTS system (as well as all those expensive cell towers) would go away permenently.

So how is this network going to be implemented? Where are all the WAP antennae going to be located? On top of phone poles? In people's houses/apartments? On separately built towers? Or rent tower space just like cell companies do? This also brings up the issue of transmitter power...you have to be able to hit the WAPs. Using today's 802.11 technology, the WAPs can't be far away or you'll need a UHF amp. (The article is slashdotted BTW).

And POTS going away? As someone who lives in a hurricane prone area, many times POTS (and amateur radio :)is all you have. Cable modem, DSL, and cell usually go down.

Re:Not if the Cell Companies...

[lawpoop]

Certainly the telecommunications industry has a vested interest in not seeing this come to fruition. However, given the recent efforts by the government to build massive data-mining operations, we now have the government emerging as a player not interested in seeing this happen.

If we have a VOIP cell phone that has secure communications, then the government has no way of listening in on calls ( with or without a warrant). If we have some kind of onion-based routing of calls, the government is no longer able to do its social network mapping (who called who, how often, and how long) that it purportedly uses to detect terrorist cells.

So, while it's a great idea, it's unlikely to happen. The future is looking more and more dystopian, at least in this country.

Re:Not if the Cell Companies...

[nxtw]

I think you're looking for things to complain about.

You don't have the issue that you have to replace your phone every few years because the technology, service plans, and network differences have made you obsolete?

No. Cingular and AT&T have used GSM here since 2002. T-Mobile also entered this market in 2002. Phones from 2002 still work, but I upgrade regularly. That doesn't stop people from using old phones. If people have no interest in using GPRS/EDGE based services, they don't need to upgrade. But GPRS-based services still work on phones that are 4 years old. Assuming they haven't been abused and the battery still works, GSM phones from five years ago should still work.

However, with upgrades allowed every 2 years, why not get a new phone?

You don't have the problem that your service provider is soaking you for every little service above and beyond "voice call time"?

No. I have a $20/mo text, data, and picture plan (1500/unlimited/200), mainly for the unlimited data. I never use 411. Of the 3 other lines, two of them never use more than 20 text messages a month. I download my own ringtones and games via BT/USB.

You don't have the problem that you have to worry about whether your network covers an area instead of Sprint Nextel, Celluar One, or Verizon? (I remember when you used to be able to at least roam! Good luck on getting that to work right these days.)

No. Coverage is decent enough. If I need to, I can roam all I want on T-Mobile here and Cellular One where needed. I haven't been on a carrier other than Cingular since they combined AT&T and Cingular's networks at the beginning of this year.

While ubiquitous GSM has been slowly making it easier to switch services on a whim, it's far from practicable.

I haven't been outside of GSM service since 2004. That was for about 15 minutes in rural North Carolina. I could sign up for T-Mobile (prepaid or regular) and use my current phone right now.

Now imagine that you have a phone that can work anywhere there's a network. It doesn't matter who's it is, as long as it's an Internet network. And not only does your phone work, but it can also do Internet, Instant Messanging, Games Downloading, etc. without all those silly fees that today's carriers charge you. In fact, you never even sign up with a carrier. You just purchase your device, assign it a dynamic DNS name, and turn it on. THAT is freedom, and THAT is what everyone should have. Good luck on getting that from Cingular. (Who I'll agree is the best of of the cell carriers ATM.)

Doesn't sound realisitc. Such a change in the carriers' business model wouldn't be acceptable to them. That's barely practical with wired interweb connections right now (Skype & the IM services doesn't count; they're way too closed). There are some SIP providers that provide calls on their own "network"/numbering plan, and offer PSTN connectivity and are relatively open, but many are unreliable (and, since they're not P2P at all, are funded only via PSTN connectivity charges or donations). Most other VoIP players provide wholesale connectivity or service designed to emulate regular phone company service.

An open, secure, as P2P as possible system would be ideal.

Not just the cells

[wiredog]

The cable companies (not much difference between them and 'traditional' telcos) will also want to stomp his idea flat.

Re:Not just the cells

[twistedsymphony]

indeed, especially considering a system like this wouldn't have any need for net-neutrality laws and the whole telco ideal of throttling bandwidth to sites or consumers that don't pay up would only hurt them further.

If they really want to sell this they'd just have to promote the angle that a government controlled network would allow the government to much more easily spy and monitor that network... then knobbiest be damned because legal power is worth more then bribes at that point.

This *is* just another greedy cell company

[dsginter]

From what I can gather, any cell company would want the sole control of some UHF bandwidth in exchange for offering "free" entry-level wireless internet access *in exchange for* the right to offer premium pay-for / high-performance service.

Its a trick. Get an axe!

No sir. If anything, just open the entire UHF spectrum for municipal wireless internet access. We don't need to assign control to a single entity (e.g. - two or three companies would be able to compete for both free and pay-for service). Yes, you'd still have to regulate it a bit since the spectrum is too valuable to be clouded up by the general public but single-source is just too dangerous. We've already learned that most anyone will take a few dollars in exchange for their corruption (e.g. - the "free" service has high-latency that prevents VoIP and other value added services).

No different than normal

[chundo]

and the government will get a kickback of the revenue.

That's called "lobbying".

Not enough bandwidth

[EmbeddedJanitor]

I didnt RTFA (probably slashdotted anyway). IBut if they're using 20MHz carrier frequency then they won't be able to stuff many bits down that pipe. To get, say, a 1Mbit channel is going to require a reasonably large bandwidth. Bigger than you're going to be allocated at 20MHz.

Perhaps TFA means a 20MHz wide band at some vastly higher frequency. In that case I guess things are possible. Still, all those free users will very soon choke the channel and if you're paying nothing you can't exactly demand any performance level.

Re:Not enough bandwidth

[ZombieWomble]

Yes, TFA is incorrectly worded. They applied for the 2155 to 2175MHZ band.

Interestingly, they reason they're offering the government money is not as a 'kick-back', but to actually pay for the allocation, since they aren't offering any money to purchase it up-front.

Re:How do we make money?

[Red Flayer]

With more video and audio being delivered, you can bet that 384/128 is too slow. Hi-def streaming video (eg, pr0n, the driver of internet technology) needs bandwidth.

And it'll fall apart...

[nbannerman]

... the minute ISPs get together and decide to traffic shape, shoving VoIP to the bottom of the list. A nice idea, and certainly it has it's merits. But can anyone else expect ISPs to tolerate a massive increase in end-to-end communications like this? Especially when some of them (Verizon, I'm looking at you) have a vested interest.

If they'll do it for bit-torrent, they'll do it for VoIP.

Eventually a flat-rate thing is going to happen.

[thealsir]

The whole idea of "long distance" went away with the net. Since then, it's just been phone companies that have gotten in the way of progress. Internet == phone. Will happen soon. Why not yet? Pigopoly.

I'm torn...

[ag-gvts-inc]

If it works, it'll be extremely useful. Combine it with either webmail or webmail via pop3, and my parents'll never have to pay for an isp again. Unfortunately, it'll also probably kill the local wisp. Which would be quite a shame, those guys have nearly succeeded in covering the last mile here where I live. And they're affordable too (ie, they're not making much off it.)

384k is barely usable?

[jgoemat]

EVDO isn't much better now. A lot of DSL subscribers are still that slow. 384k is perfectly usable for most things you need to do on the net (email, remote desktop, web browsing, game playing), it just takes longer for downloading large files or watching streaming video. Tell my parents out in the boonies that still use dialup that it wouldn't be an improvement, or people that can't afford the rates for cell-based wireless. Also, 95% sounds pretty dang good for driving around the country.

Re:Or 95% of the web sites

[ender-]

Although I think it would be great to have free nationwide 384/128kbps wireless, I see two issues:

One with the filter they want to implement. If this becomes ubiquitous then anyone who pays for another ISP may be assumed to be doing so for 'porn' purposes. So you might want to keep your non-NBRS ISP connection to yourself.

Also this is a big-brother wet-dream! Especially if people start using it for unencrypted voip traffic. No need to bug people's houses. Just get anywhere within x-miles of the target and you can read everything they send out. And it will be easy to find them using a triangulation of multiple towers in the area. At least in heavily populated area's; it might be alittle more difficult to triangulate someone's position using the single tower in BFE, Kansas.

Anyway, in the past I would have considered someone crazy if they really thought these things were an issue. Unfortunately recent history is making me more and more concerned.

Re:Or 95% of the web sites

[glindsey]

Dear NBRS:

Please feel free to try and examine the traffic flows from my SSH-tunneled connection to a box at home with a wired broadband connection.

Sincerely,
glindsey

Remember free dial-up?

[cafucu]

Yeah, that worked...for about a year. Ask altavista, netzero, or anybody who worked for one that went under (like me). Nothing is free.

Re:Kleiner Perkins?

[Andy Dodd]

I suggest you click on the "Public Companies" link to the left on the page you linked to.

Your opinion might change.

Re:On the other hand

[coastwalker]

Theres plenty of non traditional suppliers lining up for the auction with similar aspirations to unwire the States. This particular idea has probably arrived too late to be considered by the Government, which will have already lined up some very agressive bidders with very deep pockets for the spectrum sale.

Its an appealing business model though, because it matches the price of the spectrum against the revenue that can be earned from it rather than the crazy bids for 3G mobile which IMHO was partly to blame for the tech crash in 2001.

Blocking "Indecent Content"?

[Mozleron]

Did any of you happen to read the Executive summary of M2Z's proposal? Their goals are: "(1)provide nationwide boadband service with no recurring costs to all users that pruchase and register an M2Z certified device; (2)construct its network so that at least 95% of the U.S. population - in urban centers and rural communities across America - can avail themselves of the service within 10 years of license grant and commencement of operations; (3)block access to indecent content for all free access service users;(emphasis added) (4)provide public safety officials with access to an interoperable secondary data network, with appropriate consultation with such officials as to their needs; and (5)submit a voluntary payment to the U.S. Treasurey of 5% of gross revenues generated from the subscription services that it will offer in addition to the free National Broadband Radio Service."

Quoted from http://www.m2znetworks.com/pdf/Application.pdf/

I'm not too sure if i'm okay with giving this agency the power to decide what is "indecent" or not. China's government has assumed that 'right' and look at what they consider "indecent". While this is America, the pandering tone of this application makes me think that the currently Bush stacked F'nCC will jump all over that "indecent Content" bit and have a field day with it...

technical complexities

[lon3st4r]

the notion and idea is a really good one. i for one, however, am not sure if the existing WiFi standards can support such a large scale deployment.

for starters, the 802.11 standards do not have a large number of channel models for open-space deployment. each nw access point will be shared by a number of people - so for example, if 54 MBps has to be shared by each laptop @ 512 Kbps, you can theoritically have only 108 people. In a real world scenario, due to contentions and access clashes- this number usually drops down to ~50 people. Assuming a ratio of active users to total users as 1:10, each nw point would support 500 users. So essentially, you'd need to put a access point for every 500 individuals. That is a LOT of access points jam-packed together.

i'm not sure if the access points can even run at their maximum supported speeds at such high densities (there will be a lot of co-channel interference from nearby access points). effectively, the available bandwidth per person will jack down to nothing.

this is not a new phenomenon also - a lot of people have reported this problem in tech-conventions where there are such a large number of access points that nothing works. even google is reportedly having trouble setting up a WiFi cover at mountainview!

to sum up - it looks like a good idea; but it requires a lot of work from the technological perspective. * lon3st4r *